Moderated WTC 1 features list, initiation model / WTC 2 features list, collapse model

[Myriad]

To be very clear, what you believe to have occurred historically concerning what is known and unknown about each collapse is one big daydream.

That is pretty big news and I didn't need to show a single bomb or space beam to do it.

But, your big news has been scooped by countless Christians, Buddhists, tribal shamans, philosophers, paranormalists, cultists, new agers, fantasy writers, psychotics, and a folk song that begins "Row, row, row your boat."

Reality is an illusion; something else that you don't see (Heaven, Karma, the Dreamtime, the Ideal, the Spirit World, the Kingdom, the Etherial Plane, the Real World Outside the Matrix, the Bugs That Are Crawling All Over My Skin Oh My God Can't You See Them They're Everywhere) is the true reality. To be able to see it you have to learn the code (the Gospel, the Path, the magic mushroom, the harmonious ratios, the philosopher's stone, the incantations in the book of shadows, the crop circles, the mysteries of Stonehenge, the red pill, the secret cipher on the cereal boxes). Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream.

In your version: Terrorist suicide hijackings, plane crashes and fire, and large heavy objects being crushed and torn loose from their attachments by other large heavy objects falling on them, which then begin falling under gravity to crush and tear loose yet other large heavy objects, is just illusion. You can't see reality unless you know the code: a puff of smoke here, a sag there, a panel tossed in an odd direction. And True Reality is -- well, of course you can't say, I'm not advanced enough in the arcana to be able to understand.

If I memorize your kabbalistic charts of which-wall-panel-fell-where and yell Hallelujah loud enough to convince you to reveal your Hidden True Reality to me, will I get super-powers? Many of the other people selling Hidden True Reality offer super-powers, like immortality, moving mountains, levitation, curing illness, dodging bullets, casting magic spells, fortune-telling, turning lead into gold, and being able to jump from the ends of thin flimsy tree branches during katana fights.

How does your value proposition stack up? Wouldn't my time be better spent having my engrams cleared? I have it on good authority that no one can perceive Hidden True Reality if they've got engrams, so maybe that's the issue.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Major_Tom]

Maybe you should consider comparing your beliefs about how and why each tower fell with the historic visual record instead.

Amazing in that I have to remind self-proclaimed "skeptics" to verify their beliefs against the visual evidence.


The reality is in the images, genius. The fantasy is in your head. Compare your dreams to the the visual record to check how real they are.

 

[000063]

Maybe you should consider comparing your beliefs about how and why each tower fell with the historic visual record instead.

Amazing in that I have to remind self-proclaimed "skeptics" to verify their beliefs against the visual evidence.

The reality is in the images, genius. The fantasy is in your head.

Nope. Skeptics examine all of the evidence. Visual, eyewitness, physical, whatever. Confining the "acceptable" evidence to an arbitrary subset of an arbitrary subset isn't honest. You're not trying to remind, you're trying to confine.

 

[Myriad]

Maybe you should consider comparing your beliefs about how and why each tower fell with the historic visual record instead.

They compare just fine. Which is no surprise, since the historical record (including but not limited to the visual record) is where my beliefs come from in the first place.

There are no contradictions. There are no anomalies.

There are some details that exist only in the visual record, and hence have insufficient information available to establish their precise causes (where this specific puff of smoke originated from or what pushed that specific piece in exactly the direction it did). There are also many details that aren't known at all. That is completely expected and in no way suggests that there is a different hidden reality that you can lead me to.

Nonetheless I and others have repeatedly asked you what that different reality is (explosives? substandard construction?) and you have refused to answer. Either you have no such answers or you are keeping them hidden; either way that makes them occult secrets. Yet you wish me to pursue those secrets by affirming your diagrams and lists despite the fact that you have already done so yourself and yet claim not to have uncovered any such secrets. That, not the historical record, is where there are contradictions.

It just makes no sense. But it does resemble other occult systems in many ways, so evaluating it as an occult system might clarify the only remaining interesting question, which is why you keep saying these things that make no sense.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Oystein]

...
I object to TNT equivalency as it creates a false visual image, as I've highlighted. 315 tons of TNT. Kaboom. LOL.
...

Soandso many calories. Yummy! LOL.

News for you: Fire IS destructive. The more so the more energy it releases.

 

[Oystein]

The collected visual record is about the only BS-proof history of the events there is.
...

No.

That is the methodological error and "trap" that ozeco talked about in his recent reply to me.

And that is also why you will fail, if you haven't already.

 

[Oystein]

Hmm, I'm not comfortable regarding Ergo's kaleidoscopically contrarian claims as part of any intellectual framework for anything. Maybe a separate kind of performance art of its own, but not one of interest to me or, I'm pretty sure, to Major_Tom or femr2.

Respectfully
Myriad

Guess you're wrong, Myriad:

Ergo, I've been a bit busy. I'll revive the argument there and respond within the next day.

Ergo gets the thought out replies, we only get the chanted mantra.

 

[ozeco41]

What a lot of feigned interpretaions you lot seem to create all by yourselves .....

And all of it to erect a defence around Beachnut's poor choice of a comparison example which simply presented imappropriate imagery.

 

[ozeco41]

...The following approach seems quite rational. The reader can think of it as the "A, B, C's" of a rational approach to WTC historic review.:..

Not so - it does not seem "quite rational".

...A) Form and organize a complete visual record..

Surely the primary matter of interest is the mechanism of collapse. That depends on the structural aspects of the building(s) ....

...AND the visual record is no more than supporting evidence.

...B) Examine all visual evidence very carefully and list notable or suspicious details of each collapse event...

to what end and by what criteria respectively.

...C) Compare the visual record with all existing official and academic explanations by answering the following 3 questions in order:..

..and here your confused or skewed objective emerges for the umpteenth time. I have critiqued it in detail several times. Is your objective to explain the collapses? OR is is prove everyone else wrong? Pick one and stay with it. If it is "prove everyone else wrong" then count me out of any discussion.

From here on further comment is a waste of time. You have gone off the track that you set which was "the historic question of what actually happened to the WTC towers". So, despite your historic reluctance to explicitly state your objective you did so in this post and still went off the track.

Each of these may be of some secondary interest:

...1) Does the visual record match the official explanations of how and why each building collapsed?

2) Does the visual record match any of the known "9/11 truther" explanations of how and why each building collapsed?...

BUT you fail to raise the primary question of "how did the collapse occur?" AND you limit the inputs you will tolerate to the official ones and "9/11 truther" ones. Begging the question that AFAIK there is not a single published "truther" explanation and there are many professional explanations which complement the official ones.

...And after these questions are answered honestly, the question of possible demolition is addressed:...

No need to wait. Recall I criticised your limiting the anti-demolition arguments to the technical domain. There was no demolition. That is demonstrable from arguments in the domains of security and logistics. Nothing that you cannot explain in the technical domain will be of any value in supporting demolition until you address the security and logistic arguments against demolition. And I think I have made that statement on several previous occasions. Artificially limiting the discussion to technical matters will not give grounds for addressing the possibility of demolition. Your logic is wrong on that point among others.

...Note that the "demo" question isn't addressed until the third and final question...

..your self imposed limitation already addressed. The rest of us don't have to fall for it.

... This is a very important part of our history that many of you prefer to ignore.

And in the case of JREF, if you cannot honestly answer the first question then your arguments against anything but the "official story" are quite cheap and superficial...

Baseless ad-homery.

 

[NoahFence]

Maybe you should consider comparing your beliefs about how and why each tower fell with the historic visual record instead.
Amazing in that I have to remind self-proclaimed "skeptics" to verify their beliefs against the visual evidence.


The reality is in the images, genius. The fantasy is in your head. Compare your dreams to the the visual record to check how real they are.

"They" (The evil people) say that they fell due to aircraft impacts and subsequent fires.

I (Me, not so evil) saw aircraft hit the buildings and subsequent massive fires. With my own 2 eyes, as did millions of people.

That's MY visual record. Yours sucks.

 

[beachnut]

... The reality is in the images, genius. The fantasy is in your head. Compare your dreams to the the visual record to check how real they are.

Reality, gravity collapse. Then there is fantasy...

... the supposed "gravity-driven collapse" is a mere illusion to mask an intentional act so barbaric, so inhumane and morally impoverished that the fabled characteristics of Satan come to mind. ...

You are paranoid and have have failed to make progress since you made this delusional post based on nothing. Your feature list, what you see in a gravity collapse. Are you using the OJ/Scott Peterson method of searching for Satan, on a golf course? How did the evildoers do your fantasy CD stuff? What in the feature list supports your fantasy?

1) Does the visual record match the official explanations of how and why each building collapsed?

2) Does the visual record match any of the known "9/11 truther" explanations of how and why each building collapsed?

And after these questions are answered honestly, the question of possible demolition is addressed:


3) Does the visual record contain evidence of intentional manipulation of structural components behind any of the 3 collapses?

Note that the "demo" question isn't addressed until the third and final question.

This is your failed logic in action. See above http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7236555#post7236555

Compare your dreams to the the visual record to check how real they are.

It was not a dream, it was reality, a nightmare, 19 murderers. Major Tom, you missed it, and made up paranoid conspiracy theories. Nothing on your list supports your dreams in a rational way.

 

[Major_Tom]

No.

That is the methodological error and "trap" that ozeco talked about in his recent reply to me.

And that is also why you will fail, if you haven't already.

Using the actual visual record to cross-check claims by both the NIST and AE911T is a "trap".

I agree there are many traps, but if you believe things that are contrary to the visual record, you are in one of them.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If you think your dreams are preferable to the actual visual record, then your mind seems pretty set in its ways, no?

 

[DGM]

Using the actual visual record to cross-check claims by both the NIST and AE911T is a "trap".

I agree there are many traps, but if you believe things that are contrary to the visual record, you are in one of them.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If you think your dreams are preferable to the actual visual record, then your mind seems pretty set in its ways, no?

But, The visual fits very well. Buildings (1&2) get set on fire by airplanes, airplanes also cause damage, fire spreads and buildings fall down. Building 7 suffers from collapse of first two buildings by catching fire and lack of water. It also collapse several hours later.


Did I miss something?

 

[carlitos]

Relying exclusive on the "visual record" to the exclusion of everything else seems like a clear-cut case of solipsism. I agree with Myriad; it's a case of "special knowledge" or occult secrets, but without the benefits.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Maybe you should consider comparing your beliefs about how and why each tower fell with the historic visual record instead.

Amazing in that I have to remind self-proclaimed "skeptics" to verify their beliefs against the visual evidence.


The reality is in the images, genius. The fantasy is in your head. Compare your dreams to the the visual record to check how real they are.

I've done the comparison myself.

Guess what? The visual evidence supports my model (based on a gravitational collapse only, no Controlled Demolition included.)

 

[000063]

Someone on Youtube kept insisting that the freefall acceleration "NIST claimed" could only be achieved with support instantly removed, which could only be done with explosives. I pointed out that any explosives would not only have to remove support, but propel floors to freefall acceleration instantly as soon as the mass above touched them. Which was, y'know, impossible. Which is why NIST never actually claimed freefall.

They also kept confusing a simultaneous collapse (which they said NIST claimed) and a progressive one. In fact, they linked to where NIST said two parts of 7 started falling within a half-second of each other, and sardonically declared it the fastest progressive collapse they had ever heard of.

 

[Major_Tom]

1) Does the visual record match the official explanations of how and why each building collapsed?

In the case of WTC1, the answer is "no".....


NIST never noticed the early movement:

Upper West Wall Pulls Inward 9.5s before Collapse
Antenna Base Shifts Eastward 9.5s before Collapse

First visible ejections make no sense from the NIST explanation:

Earliest Ejections from fl 95, W Face, S Side

First accurate measurement of tilt over which all columns fail contradicts the NIST claims:

Minimal Tilt: Less than 1 Degree before Falling
Both N and W Perimeter Walls Fail Within 0.5s Interval

Ejected material as low as the 88th floor during the earliest visible movement while, to the NIST, the 98th fl is failing:

88th Fl S Face Light Grey Ejection

And the real kicker, the upper part of the south wall fell out and over the lower part which is quite different than what we see happen to WTC2, even though the NIST used the same initiation mechanism for both buildings:


South Wall Motion

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



In order to answer the question correctly you need to know what the NIST WTC1 collapse initiation scenario is and you have to know what actually happened, then you compare them.

If you are ignorant of the NIST initiation scenario, or you are ignorant of what the visual record shows, you cannot answer the question.

What this means is that you cannot be lazy and answer the question correctly.......

 

[NoahFence]

Doesn't "Visual Record" mean what we saw?

If so, I saw an aircraft hit the building, a fire burn out of control for an hour, and a collapse because of that.

Did you see something different?

 

[000063]

No, what people actually saw on-scene doesn't count. When MT refers to the "visual record", he means actual records, such as photos and video.

I wish I was kidding, but that seems to be exactly what I've inferred.

 

[Oystein]

Using the actual visual record to cross-check claims by both the NIST and AE911T is a "trap".

You made a choice there to not state where the trap lies in. May I remind you:
- You limit yourself to only a small part of the evidence. For example, you leave out the audio record. The structural record. The forensic record. The eye witness record.
- You limit yourself to a tiny tiny portion of the visual record; an arbitrary choice made there, the criteria of which are unstated, but seem to fall along the line "I cherry-pick quirks that I, personally, and without further study, consider ... quirky"
- You limit yourself to theories advanced by others, but fail to aim for a theory of your own. In science, theories are thrown out when better ones arise. You are not even attempting to do that, so you fail

You try to lure us into accepting your limitations and personal ignorance and incredulity. That's the trap.
Using the visual record is not the trap.

I agree there are many traps, but if you believe things that are contrary to the visual record, you are in one of them.

What do I believe that is contrary to the visual record?

If you think your dreams are preferable to the actual visual record, then your mind seems pretty set in its ways, no?

What on earth are youz talking about?




And now please, if you would: What were your criteria when you cherry-picked that very short list of visual features?