|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
9th July 2011, 12:15 AM | #41 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 720
|
It's now been nearly 10 years since that tragic day and still not one person with a conscience has come forward to support either of yours or femr2's theories. No one from this inside jobby job team. 100's of 1000's of people are dead as a result of that day, and nope...no one involved could give a rats ass huh?
What has all this "work" of your gotten you? From your list of observables I see nothing that would indicate controlled demolition and nothing that isn't in line with a building collapsing from loss of structural integrity due to fires and damage. BOTH building collapses started where? At the impact sites? Niether of the impacts set off any of these HIGHLY unstable materials either eh? I mean 50+ minutes and an hour and 20 minutes and not one of the explosives went off prematurely. What are your credentials MT? Are you a civil or structural engineer? Did you actually go to school to learn about these things? You know the collapses of the WTC buildings ARE TAUGHT in engineering schools around the country? I know it's hard to let go of something you've spent any amount of serious time on, but let's face it, it's time for you and femr2 to do so. Move on already. What you're looking for isn't there. Bazant > you, deal with it. |
9th July 2011, 04:36 AM | #42 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
|
|
__________________
http://the911forum.freeforums.org |
|
9th July 2011, 07:45 AM | #43 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
|
I'll throw in a theory if it will help my case for explaining why the feature lists are conspiracy-worthy.
I want to be more flexible with the JREF community by arguing my threads are 9/11 pollution and contamination ......... AND I will include it in a master theory with ninja-assassins with whatever devices are necessary to make it sufficiently Woodian. |
__________________
Website |
|
9th July 2011, 11:42 AM | #44 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
|
9th July 2011, 07:48 PM | #45 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 720
|
Already answered by Beach...but you go right ahead and take that passive aggressive tone you do so well...it's neat. Did you change the names of your youtube videos? They still say "demolition"? That's clearly what YOU think happened to them, so...yeah...that's your THEORY, and you're no closer to proving it now than you were when you started this nonsense.
|
10th July 2011, 06:54 AM | #46 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
|
LMAO. There is no such thing as "The Official Theory". Where may I find the tome ?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Unbelievably weak response, oz. What theories would that be exactly ? Quotes please. |
__________________
http://the911forum.freeforums.org |
|
10th July 2011, 10:09 AM | #47 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
Your theory is 911 was an inside job, your stand is, "fictional official theory".
You called the theory, which you say does not exist, the "fictional official theory", a direct quote from you, which you may of removed. Did you erase this quote? Why? Big proof of your bias for an inside job, your 60+ videos titled, "demolition", which you will quibble about. You offer no knowledge, no evidence, no capability to stop the lies from 911 truth which you share here at a skeptics forum, where you can't finish work which studies a collapse which is worthless, like this feature list of Major Tom for backing in some Satan like inside job nonsense. Either you think 911 was an inside job, or you have to try to attack NIST making up nonsense for no reason. Anyone who studies the collapse like Major Tom, or a single point of a the collapse of WTC7 (not even a target by 19 terrorists), you have been bitten by the inside job bug and have failed to find the cure for over 9 years. Why did you remove your "fictional official theory" statement? Why are your videos titled "demolition", and not the lame excuse you made up. Study of the collapse is a waste of time because your goal is to attack NIST and support your fictional official theory stand, did the same Satan like people do your delusional version of 911? What is the goal of the feature list, or it is a never ending effort so Major Tom can say no one understands how the WTC collapsed? Goal free truthing from Major Tom, never ends as he fails to back in demolition. Was he mislead by your "demolition" videos? |
10th July 2011, 12:36 PM | #48 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
|
Incorrect. Why do you make up lies beachnut ? Wh
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
http://the911forum.freeforums.org |
|
10th July 2011, 12:41 PM | #49 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
10th July 2011, 12:59 PM | #50 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
|
Measure and observe before theorizing.
(Though I'll gladly throw in a bunch of Woodian speculation if it will help make the subject of measurements and observations of the buildings conspiracy-worthy.) |
__________________
Website |
|
10th July 2011, 01:26 PM | #51 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
|
You've never heard of a "working hypothesis"? It's not some sort of sign of weakness if the hypothesis changes. In fact, if you get it right the first time, that's usually a sign something's gone wrong.
|
10th July 2011, 02:00 PM | #52 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
10th July 2011, 02:07 PM | #53 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
10th July 2011, 02:13 PM | #54 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
10th July 2011, 02:18 PM | #55 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
Wow. That's a lot longer than free-fall.
|
10th July 2011, 04:17 PM | #56 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,871
|
What femr2 Believes – Theories and Opinions:
You can fool some of the people all of the time and you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you couldn't fool Beachnut this time.
Here, in chronological order: What femr2 Believes – Theories and Opinions: 8/3/2009 All Tall Buildings Designed To Be Brought Down
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Have a nice day. |
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum |
|
10th July 2011, 05:46 PM | #57 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 720
|
10 years worth of measuring and observing isn't enough time to come up with a theory? Both of you are trying to prove CD, you both know it, just freaking come out and say it finally. 10 years of observing and you have no theory, yet 100's of others were able to discern testable theories and hypothesis years ago with regards to this event. Pretty sad you've yet to disclose yours. (Even though we all know what it is)
@Femr2 Really? "Demolition" in the YOUTUBE title as a keyword for a search engine for those that think it was a demolition...and here I thought that's what tags were for and titles were what one provided to give people an idea of what your video was about....silly me. Give me a break. That's ridiculous. I guess your video "WTC7 Pyroclastic Like Dust Ejecta Before Roofline Descent" is just for "keyword" searches too eh? |
10th July 2011, 05:49 PM | #58 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 720
|
|
10th July 2011, 06:40 PM | #59 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
|
ROFL. Splendid. Notice the gradual change in position ? Someone's been a busy bunny
That *boom, boom* one is funny. I got called on that at the time, and said...
Quote:
My viewpoint has changed constantly over the period, as that's the point of analysis. Pose questions, find answers. Dead useful. See any mention of inside job ? Nope. See discussion of how to go about blowing the beastie by various different means and checking what it would look like in comparison to the visual record ? Yup. See reams of such possibilities being thrown out ? Absolutely. If you think you know what my viewpoint is, I can pretty much guarantee you're wrong I can give you a long list of things that didn't happen if you like Oh, btw, ever seen my viewpoint on the definition of the extents of MIHOP ? I'll give you a clue...it allows for simply knowing enough about the buildings to KNOW that destruction to ground will ensue following impact. ie On Purpose, not just an unforseen consequence. Have a nice day. |
__________________
http://the911forum.freeforums.org |
|
10th July 2011, 07:00 PM | #60 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
|
|
__________________
http://the911forum.freeforums.org |
|
10th July 2011, 07:36 PM | #61 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Yes.
Major_Tom not only ruled it out but posted an explanation which is pro-debunker, pro-NIST and he still gets ridiculed for it. I could say "Go figure" but you probably already have. ...and that could be far too subtle for this setting. |
10th July 2011, 07:51 PM | #62 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
|
|
11th July 2011, 07:25 AM | #63 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
LOL
"Supernanothermite"?!? |
11th July 2011, 07:30 AM | #64 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
|
11th July 2011, 07:33 AM | #65 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
11th July 2011, 07:43 AM | #66 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
|
No, femr2 would laugh at your imprecision and call it sloppy nonsense.
femr2 wrote consistently of "supernanothermiate", not supernanothermite. Similarly, he's been concerned about "propogation", not propagation. This isn't humorous or humourous, it's "humerous". |
11th July 2011, 03:58 PM | #67 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
|
If the feature lists underwent an unmentionable fate and are not considered conspiracy-worthy, what is the point of this thread?
Is it to determine whether the ill-fated unmentionable lists can be returned to this forum? What is the point if the original threads..............well....you know..... Is there an actual topic? |
__________________
Website |
|
11th July 2011, 04:01 PM | #68 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
The visual record shows that an aircraft struck WTC 1 and 2, which collapsed. WTC 1 collapsed into (among others) WTC 7, causing fires that eventually took that one down as well.
It also shows a massive impact at the Pentagon and in a field in Shanksville, PA. So yea - good call. I go with the visual record as well. 'Cept it took me less than freefall time to figure out why the towers collapsed. You? 10 years and still nuthin'. |
12th July 2011, 08:30 PM | #70 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
This is your topic, you made it up. Your Feature List Thread is still active, and upgraded to science. lol, http://www.internationalskeptics.com...189754&page=35 ; do you need help finding your thread?
How will your feature list support your inside job claims of controlled demolition? Your web site has zero conclusion, zero evidence to support your Satan like evil doers did 911. Why do you have to bash NIST? Your work should stand by itself, no need to attack other work, just present your own work. No one needs NIST to understand impacts and fire destroyed WTC 1 and 2, and fire destroyed WTC 7. Are you having problems understanding the reality of fire and gravity collapse after 9 years of failure to make a valid conclusion? What are you plans? When you presented your work to Robertson, what did he say about his towers collapsing? Why have you failed to make progress to prove your point? Your point, the Satan like evil doers did it. Why have you failed? Is it due to lack of concentration on your goal? You are looking for the Satan like evil doers signature in the feature list but all you found, all you created was nonsense.
Quote:
|
13th July 2011, 01:52 PM | #71 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
In both threads, you are allowed to debate your feature lists.
You might want to start by explaining what your criteria were for selecting a very small number of visual features, which exclude, among many many others, the observation of plane crashes and fires under the heading "pre-collapse features". You also could try to explain better by what criteria you selected only observations from the visual record, to the exclusion of the audio record, the seismic record, the engineering records, the forensic record, or the eye witness record. You see, so far you presented your selected features. Don't worry if they are not found where you originally pasted them; we are able to find and read them. Step 2 would be to explain that selection. Steps 3, 4, 5, 6, .... N can follow after we have finished steps 1 (finished) and 2 (open). Unless of course you are utterly unwilling to debate your feature lists. In which case I wonder why you ever posted them. So do you want to debate your feature lists, and everything that follows from them? Then do it here, or do it in the well-known thread over at SMMT. If however you want to continue whining and debating administrative issues - in other words, if your next post here, or there, does not address your own feature lists - and not start debating your feature lists, which is the topic of this thread as well as the other, I shall report you as off-topic. |
13th July 2011, 03:02 PM | #72 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
|
Basque and Clinger, thanks for your documentation. My reaction to the statements of Femr2 was to shake my head and just say to myself 'it ain't worth commenting on'; but you've exposed the deception and deliberate ambiguity admirably.
|
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!' 000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.' mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon' |
|
13th July 2011, 04:32 PM | #73 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
Months ofd posting? Ahem!
On May 19th, 2011, you started a fresh thread, which you called "WTC2 Feature List, Complete Collapse Model": 8 posts and about 4.5 hours later, I addressed the OP thusly: I think that was a reasonable reply to your first post, and an obvious question to ask. It didn't come "after months of posting", it came after a few hours. You say that WTC2 collapse initiation was different from WTC1's, right? So this was a fresh start indeed, and I replied soon. I never got a reply, or even an acknowledgement from you. So I reposted my question tqo days later: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7206036&postcount=1172 You never answered the question. Instead, you started whining (which is an off-topic, discussing moderators' actions outside the FM sub-forum): http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7207080&postcount=1183 I repeated my on-topic question: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7207748&postcount=1185 Instead of answering, you again whined: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7208964&postcount=1187 I asked my on-topic question again, regarding your topic, the WTC2 feature lists: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7208964&postcount=1187 No reply, instead, you whined some more. So I had to ask again: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1203 This was on May 24th. Two days later, you posted, but did not reply to my question. So I had to bump the question on May 27th: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1247 Did I get a reply? Let's see... here is an off-topic... nope, no answering a question that addressed the OP! So I reminded you on May 28th: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1260 Two days later, you merely reposted your feature lists, with no explanation about how you selected just those features: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1286 So I had to ask you again: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1287 And finally, I get at least an attempted answer: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1288 It wasn't sufficient - you didn't explain the criteria: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1289 You failed to address the question in all the following posts: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1299 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1308 But in one, you seem to admit that the choice was totally arbitrary: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1310 I explained to you why your attempted stating of criteria is insufficient: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1326 ozeco explained very well why your selection satisfies no sound criteria: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1329 You again failed to clarify: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1332 I had to explain to you again why your answers so far were inadequate. Also how you erected strawmen: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1340 Yet you continued to fight strawmen, and not explain your criteria: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1341 (ozeco explains this well: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1342 ) It seems that the thread was moved around that time to SMMT. I reminded you of a question still unanswered - the very same question I had been asking all along: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1351 Let me repeat it here:
Then you abandoned your thread, after never having explained your criteria when you cherry-picked that very short list of visual features of the WTC2 collapse. A month later, you returned, and acted as if the OP of that WTC2 thread had never been challenged: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1359 At least this proves that you still know where to find that thread and how to use it, rendering your often-seen whining about its unmentionable fate a lie. But you have not yet explained: What were your criteria when you cherry-picked that very short list of visual features for WTC2? And that is what you call debating? |
13th July 2011, 05:11 PM | #74 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
|
Yes, and moderator kmortis provided an adequate explanation on 29 June. See the mod box in post #31.
Then you should identify those mistakes and explain them. You'd rather whine. For example:
This is an Internet forum. If you were expecting a professional level of peer review, then you submitted your ideas to the wrong place. In my opinion, the criticism you've received here has been more than adequate to expose major problems with your ideas. If you wish to argue that all of that criticism has been mistaken, then it is your job to explain why all of that criticism has been mistaken. To do that, you will have to answer the legitimate questions that have been raised (by Oystein and others) instead of running away from those questions. Whining about forum moderation or your critics' unspecified mistakes gives the impression that you're trying to cover the failure of your arguments with a smoke screen of irrelevant distractions. |
13th July 2011, 06:29 PM | #75 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
|
You want me to repeat the same arguments I had in the thread with the long posting history of common JREF mistakes?
You couldn't figure out why the 7 symmetric ejections that appear across the east face of WTC2 along the 78th fl are conspiracy worthy? You want me to explain why the corners of the 75-77th fl west perimeter being forcefully ejected with beam flooring still attached is conspiracy worthy? You want me to explain why forceful ejections out of the 88th fl of the south side of WTC1 as the building tilts 10 stories above is conspiracy worthy? How about the early antenna movement of WTC1 that the NIST didn't detect, or the NW corner movement they didn't detect. How about the minimal tilt angle that none of you were able to measure correctly? What about how WTC1 failed through the 98th fl at less than 1 degree tilt of any visible vertical component? No explanation, official or otherwise. What about the big fireballs out of the south side of WTC1 right where the IB forms a few minutes later when WTC2 was struck by an aircraft? That is not worthy of consideration in this forum? Then there is the extremely early ejection from the 77th fl during the collapse initiation sequence 20 fls above. Is that conspiracy worthy? What about the ejections from WTC1 at 10:18 from fls 92, 95 and 98 at the same time? Just a floor slab? The flashes seen from around the 95th fl NE corner of WTC2? Not conspiracy worthy? And the seven sisters? Here is the origin of one of the sisters: What about that flash thing and the obvious shock. Isn't that conspiracy worthy? How those ejections come out symmetrically from the geometrical low points in the step break shown as 7 ovals along the 78th fl spandrel? How the ejections then skip 3 floors and come out of the 75th fl. Worthy of consideration? The timing of the forceful 75th fl ejections seem to match the "breaking of the hinge" in femr's latest data. Not conspiracy worthy? You need me to explain to you why these things are conspiracy worthy? ....................... |
__________________
Website |
|
13th July 2011, 07:57 PM | #76 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
|
No, because it is an established fact that at least some of your arguments were incorrect. Repeating failed arguments would neither inform us nor support your case.
At the very least, you should identify which of your attempted arguments you still believe to be tenable. Yes. Your refusal to suggest any plausible connections with 9/11 conspiracy theories is one of the reasons ozeco41 and others have asked why you're posting in the 9/11 conspiracy forum. If you can explain a plausible connection between your features and a 9/11 conspiracy, then do so. Yes. We've been asking you to do that for the better part of a year now. Look, we know these things are connected to the conspiracy in which 19 terrorists hijacked four aircraft and flew three of them into buildings and the fourth into Pennsylvania. If that's all you and femr2 mean by MIHOP, then it's time to end your shaggy dog story. If you mean anything else, then it's long past time for you to state your hypothesis. |
14th July 2011, 12:48 AM | #77 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
|
14th July 2011, 05:17 AM | #78 |
Biomechanoid
Director of IDIOCY (Region 13) Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Texas (aka SOMD)
Posts: 32,151
|
|
__________________
-Aberhaten did it - "Which gives us an answer to our question. What’s the worst thing that can happen in a pressure cooker?" Randall Munroe -Director of Independent Determining Inquisitor Of Crazy Yapping - Aberhaten's Apothegm™ - An Internet law that states that optimism is indistinguishable from sarcasm |
|
14th July 2011, 05:36 AM | #79 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
|
Oystien, pretty much any long time poster on the 9/11 forum knows where ther lists came from.
Try looking at my website and you will find a menu titled "aircraft impacts" next to the feature lists. Maybe that is a clue where to find impact information? Think about it. ............................................ WD Clinger, you focussed on one item of one list concerning vectors and tilt angle. Here is the WTC1 list: WTC1 Before the Collapse Damage to Basement and Lobby Fire, Smoke Ejections as WTC2 is Struck Strong Fire Ejections As WTC2 Collapses Inward Bowing of the S Perimeter Ejections Witnessed at 10:18 Roofline Smoke Pulses just before Collapse Collapse Initiation Sequence Drift and Drop Movements Traced and Plotted: Summary Upper West Wall Pulls Inward 9.5s before Collapse Antenna Base Shifts Eastward 9.5s before Collapse Fire Flair-up along E Face 3s before Collapse Antenna Sags 2 ft into Roofline before Falling Concave Roof Deformity Measured by Drop Curves Earliest Ejections from fl 95, W Face, S Side Over-pressurization of fl 98 before Falling Begins Minimal Tilt: Less than 1 Degree before Falling Both N and W Perimeter Walls Fail Within 0.5s Interval NW Corner: Upper Slides over N Face, Behind W Face NE Corner: Upper Assembly Snaps Over Lower Portion Jolts Detected in Earliest Antenna, NW Corner Drops 88th Fl S Face Light Grey Ejection 77th Fl Over-pressurization Timing Inexplicable . -----COLLAPSE PROGRESSION MODEL----- West Wall Motion North Wall Motion South Wall Motion East Wall Motion Ejections Below Collapse Fronts Mechanical Floor Ejections Ejections Traversing E Face, Fls 50-55 Antenna Section Falls Southward Free-fall Comparison: Tracking Earliest Falling Object Entire E-W Width of the Core Survives Initial Collapse Surviving Core Remnant Drops Collectively Rubble Layout and Column Conditions Recorded You focssed on one item called "Measuring tilt angle using vectors". In order to determine tilt angle I gave you 2 different links using 2 methods of measuring the same angle. I kept repeating to use the other link to you but you seemed determined to focus only on that one item. I think of it a "clinging" to the one item. That is how I remember it, that "clinger" likes to "cling" to single items. Notice how the item under discussion isn't on the list and hasn't been there for about 6 months. It was removed because it was being discussed in the other forum. The cartesian coordinate systems was to be changed to polar with the camera at the origin. That is all. Will redo the vector portion but only to focus on the earliest displacements of the antenna. I don't require vectors to get a good sense of tilting and I stated that in the original posts. But clinger will "cling" to the single feature even though it hasn't been on the list for months and was never necessary. Notice that the feature measuring angle has been updated a while ago. It was done in the original ill-fated thread. You don't remember the way JREF poster after poster kept screwing up the measurements until femr was able to correct them? Short selective memory? ............................................... Oystien, Achimspok and femr must find your comments about cherry picking observables to be humorous. The features lists are not mine. They are a compilation of the work of other people. If you bothered to read the lists you would have seen that many of the features link back to the original discussions. If you bother to actually read the 9/11 Forum for comprehension instead of your usual reading habits, you will be able to find most every feature as the topic of its own thread. "Cherry pick" is yet another on those hypnotic mantras you keep repeating to yourself in order to dream up some imaginary defence. In a forum in which observables are studioned carefully, each item on the list would have its own thread. In this forum, most every observable feature worthy of study for WTC1 and 2 is crammed into 1 thread and moved out of the forum. Like I said, you would have to have a turnip for a brian to view the features as "cherry picked". Notice that the list is compiled from the work of other people after the most complete visual record is gathered and the collapse modes are already identified. This is why I posted a thread called "OOS Propagation Model" before I posted any feature lists. I am very aware that it is probably beyond your capacity to do so, but please try to understand that the lists are not compiled "out of the blue" but only after readers are aware that [b]the collapse initiationsequence and the MER floor activity are the most important places to look, as determined in the OOS model. |
__________________
Website |
|
14th July 2011, 07:17 AM | #80 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
|
You have yet to explain how any items on that list are connected to any conspiracy other than the one described in The 9/11 Commission Report.
The obvious conclusion is that you are unable to establish any such connection. I selected that item because it falls within my personal domain of expertise. Others here have looked at other items and come to similar conclusions. As I wrote last December: You have been unable to explain how your 30+ items are related to any conspiracy other than the 19 hijackers and their al-Qaeda backers. You're like a child collecting pebbles from a beach and proclaiming their importance. It's cute for a while. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|