IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


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.
Closed Thread
Old 23rd June 2011, 09:13 AM   #1
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
Major_Tom's Features Lists [split from: Discussion of femr's video data analysis]

Edited by kmortis:  Removed off topic content


Isn't it a bit hypocritical to ask how measurements contradict the NIST collapse initiation scenario for WTC7 when you were given the answer for WTC1 already and watched as the thread was removed?

The logic was already established for WTC1 and 2, removed, then you want the same for WTC7?
__________________
Website

Last edited by kmortis; 29th June 2011 at 06:05 AM. Reason: Removed to comply with Rule 11
Major_Tom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2011, 09:18 AM   #2
Carll68
Critical Thinker
 
Carll68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 324
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
Edited by kmortis:  Removed off topic content


Isn't it a bit hypocritical to ask how measurements contradict the NIST collapse initiation scenario for WTC7 when you were given the answer for WTC1 already and watched as the thread was removed?

The logic was already established for WTC1 and 2 then you want the same for WTC7?
<------- Math & Science forum is that way


The complaining forum is over there--------->

Neither are in this forum.

Answer NoahFences question on WTC7, or don't, and never understand why you fail to understand....

Last edited by kmortis; 29th June 2011 at 06:04 AM. Reason: Removed previously moderated content
Carll68 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th June 2011, 12:29 AM   #3
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Is there a point to only discussing a subset when you are attempting to find the reason for the whole? I can see your point but, he has not been able to explain why these are the "observations" that are "significant"(instead of others).



I do. No one has actually presented a theory.
The NIST presented a theory on the collapse initiation sequences of all 3 buildings. It has been shown that the theory is contradicted by observables for WTC1. It can easily be shown for WTC2 and I had a thread to do that.

Femr is doing so for WTC7 in this thread.
........................

The forum as a whole tends to support the false belief that the NIST theory is "good enough". That is not true but forum members keep repeating it like a mantra.

DGM, I already know you couldn't even tell me what the NIST initiation scenarios are. You do not even know what the NIST theory is for each building, yet you defend it.

This is the nature of the current discussion, people defending a theory they can't even explain. It is not a discussion based on reason but on advertising core false concepts by repeating them over and over.
__________________
Website

Last edited by Major_Tom; 24th June 2011 at 12:33 AM.
Major_Tom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th June 2011, 02:30 AM   #4
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
...Femr is doing so for WTC7 in this thread...
..are you sure of that claim?
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
...The forum as a whole tends to support the false belief that the NIST theory is "good enough"....
WRONG - and you should be aware that you are misrepresenting. The forum members in general do not agree that '......the NIST theory is "good enough" is a false belief'. Take that wrong word out and your claim is probably acceptable to most.

If we remove that one word which makes your claim UNTRUE I think that you can validly claim this:
Quote:
...The forum as a whole tends to support the .... belief that the NIST theory is "good enough"...
I suggest that the majority of members would support that statement.* Speaking for myself I hold to the opinion that '...the NIST theory is "good enough"... FOR ME' and I have explained at least several times why that is so. I could probably tell you which regular posting members here also hold that '...the NIST theory is "good enough"... FOR [THEM]'.

You will not progress any acceptance of the valid portions of your claim - the position that you hold on these matters - whilst you persist in misrepresenting many of us despite having had our positions clearly explained many times.

The reality is that many members here hold to the global position put by NIST that impact damage and accumulating fire damage caused the collapses of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7.

Your work and femr2's work as posted here and as limited by you and femr2 respectively does no more that suggest possible alternate mechanisms which resulted in the collapse. If you were to change the global position to add some form of 'MIHOP' to 'impact damage plus fire damage' then the game would change - but you do not have 'MIHOP' in the scope of your current discussion so forget it at this stage.

So all that you are discussing is details within that global position - impact damage plus fire damage. Until and unless you change that global position you have no basis for your false claims such as:
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
...That is not true but forum members keep repeating it like a mantra.
That claim is a lie by inference. The "That" of "That is not true" refers to the clause '...the NIST theory is "good enough"...' you cannot say it is "not true" unless you specify "for who?"

It may not be "good enough" for you and you are entitled to that view. you cannot claim that is it "NOT good enough" for me or for any other member posting here.

From that point your post degenerates into the type of snide criticisms of other members which degrade many of your posts. I need not comment on your choice of tactics.


* Yes, I know, they may not if you as an alleged truther made the statement the need to disagree with the truther would probably override the actual issue in question....but that is a different subject which I have posted about several times - keywords 'the sky is blue' -

Last edited by ozeco41; 24th June 2011 at 02:34 AM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th June 2011, 03:07 PM   #5
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
You proved it yourself:

http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/5/2/786877858.gif

The whole point of disagreement is in whether the columns buckled even if the assemblies didn't. It's not flimsy, it's the whole point over whether NIST got it right or not. If you define "column" in a way different to that used by NIST, then you are cheating.

What part of the conclusions stated in chapters 8 and 9 of NIST's NCSTAR 1 would be affected if they referred to the assemblies and these assemblies actually didn't buckle?

Here is a map. Care to mark the X?


Only 7 items on the WTC1 feature list are necessary to show that the collapse initiation scenario given by the NIST cannot be true. That was already shown in the removed thread.

I can also show that the WTC2 collapse initiation scenario contradicts observables, and was doing that in the thread that was removed.

Pgimeno, if you actually read the information in the introduction of each of those reports, it clearly states that the primary goal of the report is to describe the "how and why" of each of the collapses.

They tell you the primary goals themselves. Please try to understand that. If the explanations for the collapse initiations for all 3 buildings contradicts the visual record, they the failed to identify the "how and why" of any of the buildings.

Identification of the "how and why" of the collapses is not my criteria, it is clearly written in each report as being the primary goal.

I am sure you will cling to your beliefs as you are still convinced the Bazant papers BV, BL and BLGB contain no major flaws. I am certain I will never see the day where an argument convinces you of anything, since your beliefs are clearly set as firmly as the course of the northern star.

Sail on, brother.
__________________
Website

Last edited by Major_Tom; 25th June 2011 at 03:09 PM.
Major_Tom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th June 2011, 06:33 AM   #6
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,871
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
To me it is stunning that I can answer these questions pretty easily using the same feature lists that were removed from this forum.

I posted the first one about 1 year ago and your simple discussion shows me you never read it.

We cannot have a technical argument if you pretend the information in the feature lists does not exist and then have the lists removed from the forum. I posted them so people would not remain so ignorant of how the actual buildings moved. They were removed, and your posts show me that regular posters remain quite ignorant of the actual motion of both buildings.

This is just simple WTC1 and 2 knowledge. Your comments show how ignorant many people remain of the actual visual record and of the information in the feature lists.
A pile of features is no more an explanation than a pile of bricks is a house.
__________________
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
BasqueArch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th June 2011, 11:53 AM   #7
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
You need to look at the initiation process as a whole to understand it, instead of removing the only thread in which the event is studied in detail from this forum.

[...]

Surely the hypocrisy is visible for all to see?
Says the man who tried to restrict discussion to only the visual record, and only certain hand-picked parts of that.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th June 2011, 12:52 PM   #8
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
To review, my approach to studying WTC1 and 2 was quite simple.

First, I gathered the largest and most complete visual record possible (and linked to the best sets of video through CTV, Xenomorph and Femr)

Second, I pieced together the visual record to determine the collapse mode and global mass flow. This is summarized in the WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics.

With the complete visual record and a detailed knowledge and mapping of global mass flow,

Third, I put together an detailed list of observations, expecially of the crucial moments during collapse initiation by using the best work on this forum. These observations are compiled as a "feature list" or "roadmap" on each building.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

These were complied using the measurements of femr as one source.

Notice how the lists are assembled from the complete visual record.

You would have to be a simpleton to imagine that the videos and images used were cherry-picked. Anyone is welcome to assemble a record of any visual observation from the complete visual record and add it to the list of observations to either confirm or contradict anything on the list but posters are too lazy to do that, so they somehow blame me for their own inability to assemble visual evidence.

Edited by kmortis:  Removed off topic content
__________________
Website

Last edited by kmortis; 29th June 2011 at 06:02 AM. Reason: Removed to comply with Rule 11
Major_Tom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th June 2011, 01:16 PM   #9
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
Third, I put together an detailed list of observations, expecially of the crucial moments during collapse initiation by using the best work on this forum. These observations are compiled as a "feature list" or "roadmap" on each building.
But you still can't explain what makes the moments "crucial" other than you asserting they are.

So, How exactly did you decide what were the "crucial moments"? We keep asking this and you never answer. It's OK to say they support you possition best, the thing is you have to actually state your position.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th June 2011, 01:35 PM   #10
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
But you still can't explain what makes the moments "crucial" other than you asserting they are.

So, How exactly did you decide what were the "crucial moments"? We keep asking this and you never answer. It's OK to say they support you possition best, the thing is you have to actually state your position.
We all agree that the collapse initiation sequence and the moments leading up to it are the most critical moments to look for evidence of foul play.

I have been saying LOOK AT COLLAPSE INITIATION very, very clearly since first posting the OOS thread. It is clearly mentioned on the first page of that thread and I have repeated it countless times since then.
__________________
Website

Last edited by Major_Tom; 26th June 2011 at 01:37 PM.
Major_Tom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th June 2011, 01:48 PM   #11
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
We all agree that the collapse initiation sequence and the moments leading up to it are the most critical moments to look for evidence of foul play.

I have been saying LOOK AT COLLAPSE INITIATION very, very clearly since first posting the OOS thread. It is clearly mentioned on the first page of that thread and I have repeated it countless times since then.
By "foul play" we have to assume you mean controlled demolition via explosives.*

Having said that, there is precisely zero items in your exhaustive list of technobabble that even hints at a collapse initiation caused by anything other than aircraft impacts and fire.

Am I wrong? If so, please post in clear non technobabble language that a monkey like me can translate -

what is it I should be looking at to change my mind? I see aircraft impacts and fire. What is it about your babble and graphs that prove otherwise?




*Since you'll never actually come out and say you mean explosives, we have to assume.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th June 2011, 02:17 PM   #12
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
By "foul play" we have to assume you mean controlled demolition via explosives.*

Having said that, there is precisely zero items in your exhaustive list of technobabble that even hints at a collapse initiation caused by anything other than aircraft impacts and fire.

Am I wrong? If so, please post in clear non technobabble language that a monkey like me can translate -

what is it I should be looking at to change my mind? I see aircraft impacts and fire. What is it about your babble and graphs that prove otherwise?
Even though I have posted the information on each list a while ago, you remain ignorant of the collapse initiation processes of all three buildings.

If you remain ignorant of basically every feature I have posted, what can I do to help you become less ignorant of the collapse initiaton processes at this stage of the exchange?

My answer is simple: Don't remain proud of your own ignorance and educate yourself on the initiation processes. The information you now request has been in front of you for a long time.
Edited by kmortis:  Removed off topic content



I cannot answer that type of a question to a person who remains ignorant of basically all the information already presented. If you effectively brag of your own inability to examine evidence or retain any information, why would you demand I overcome that problem for you?
__________________
Website

Last edited by kmortis; 29th June 2011 at 05:35 AM. Reason: Removed to comply with Rule 11
Major_Tom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th June 2011, 02:36 PM   #13
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Quote:
Even though I have posted the information on each list a while ago, you remain ignorant of the collapse initiation processes of all three buildings.
I certainly do not. I know what initiated the collapses. Aircraft impacts and fire.

Quote:
If you remain ignorant of basically every feature I have posted, what can I do to help you become less ignorant of the collapse initiaton processes at this stage of the exchange?
How about telling me what part of it leads you to conclude something other than aircraft impacts and fire was the culprit? You've yet to do this. Just because you SAY you did it, doesn't make it so. I was the first man on the moon. If i say that another say, 100 times, will it be any more true? Nope.

Quote:
My answer is simple: Don't remain proud of your own ignorance and educate yourself on the initiation processes. The information you now request has been in front of you for a long time.
Edited by kmortis:  Removed off topic content
Long, winded way of saying "wahhh". I know what the initiation process was. I knew for a FACT what it was before the 1st building even hit the ground.

Quote:
I cannot answer that type of a question to a person who remains ignorant of basically all the information already presented. If you effectively brag of your own inability to examine evidence or retain any information, why would you demand I overcome that problem for you?

Let me make it simple for you. It's a two part statement. I'll do the first, and you can do the second part, mmmkay?

"The towers fell because ..... "


Two choices - aircraft impacts and fire, or explosives.

NOTHING YOU HAVE PRESENTED has EVER come close to contradicting what the rest of us knew before the 1st building even hit the ground.

Nothing. No amount of childish whining and complaining will change that fact. Only hard, concrete evidence presented in an adult manner in clear, proper language will.

Last edited by kmortis; 29th June 2011 at 05:35 AM. Reason: Removed previously moderated contnent
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th June 2011, 02:45 PM   #14
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
We all agree that the collapse initiation sequence and the moments leading up to it are the most critical moments to look for evidence of foul play.

I have been saying LOOK AT COLLAPSE INITIATION very, very clearly since first posting the OOS thread. It is clearly mentioned on the first page of that thread and I have repeated it countless times since then.
We saw the "foul play". It's the airplanes hitting the buildings.

Until you can explain why we should look for something else, you're nowhere.

GET IT!
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th June 2011, 02:57 PM   #15
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Am I wrong? If so, please post in clear non technobabble language that a monkey like me can translate -

what is it I should be looking at to change my mind? I see aircraft impacts and fire. What is it about your babble and graphs that prove otherwise?
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
Even though I have posted the information on each list a while ago, you remain ignorant of the collapse initiation processes of all three buildings.

If you remain ignorant of basically every feature I have posted, what can I do to help you become less ignorant of the collapse initiaton processes at this stage of the exchange?

My answer is simple: Don't remain proud of your own ignorance and educate yourself on the initiation processes. The information you now request has been in front of you for a long time, in the threads that were removed.

I cannot answer that type of a question to a person who remains ignorant of basically all the information already presented. If you effectively brag of your own inability to examine evidence or retain any information, why would you demand I overcome that problem for you?
I like how someone specifically asking for evidence to change their mind is willfully ignorant in your sad little world.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th June 2011, 12:12 AM   #16
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
Even though I have posted the information on each list a while ago, you remain ignorant of the collapse initiation processes of all three buildings.

If you remain ignorant of basically every feature I have posted, what can I do to help you become less ignorant of the collapse initiaton processes at this stage of the exchange?...
Major_Tom you have a major disconnect in most of these posts.

What "collapse initiation processes" are you talking about? You have never described these "collapse initiation processes" whilst you keep referring to a list of "features".

You continue to talk about features BUT have NEVER shown where they fit in any "collapse initiation processes". You then insult us because we cannot see the "collapse initiation processes" which you have hidden from view in the deep recesses of your mind.

If you want to be taken seriously stop insulting us as readers and tell us what these "collapse initiation processes" are. AND, if you wish us to have any regard for your much vaunted "features", show how the "features" relate to the "collapse initiation processes" you are claiming.

"Features" are not a process. The ball is in your court - your burden of proof if you prefer that language. We are not mind readers.

If there is any relationship between your selected "features" and a "process" that relationship is clearly of your construction. How can we comment in any meaningful way if you won't tell us what the "collapse initiation processes" are that you keep us in the dark about then have the effrontery to insult us for not reading your mind.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th June 2011, 06:40 AM   #17
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post

What "collapse initiation processes" are you talking about? You have never described these "collapse initiation processes" whilst you keep referring to a list of "features".
I map the event itself instead of drifting off into La La land to "invent" yet another theory.

Why en the objects were tracked and measured, I found out that basically everything the NIST says about the initiation processes was untrue.

I posted this a while ago butr I can see in the currnet posts that nobody understood the information contained or even understood the NIST explanations well enoutgh to see a contradiction.

Even when contradictions are posted directly in front of the readers face, they are ignored. Even today posters remain ignorant of the actual movement while somehow imagining they "have studied the building ".



Collapse Initiation Sequence WTC1
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

Edited by kmortis:  Removed off topic content


Femr is one of the sources I use for measurements.

This is the best mapping of physical movement during the WTC1 collapse initiation process on the planet. Ignored.

Ozeco, if you actually learn what has been posted over and over again I wouldn't have to keep pointing out what I have posted many times.

In the case of WTC2, I just posted a collapse initiation model based on a sequence of 5 distinct observable phenomena. FEMR MENTIONED ONLY ONE OBJECT ON A LONG LIST POSTED EARLIER.
__________________
Website

Last edited by kmortis; 29th June 2011 at 05:34 AM. Reason: Removed to comply with Rule 11
Major_Tom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th June 2011, 07:00 AM   #18
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
Concerning WTC2 I have explained that the initiation sequence contains 5 distinct features




Including 7 symmetric ejections that appear in the red ovals along the 78th floor.

I posted that the wall broke along an identifiable bolted seam shown in purple over 2 years ago. That seam was know known or identified before I was discovered by ...me. Notice how the staggered bolt line in purple line up with the red ovals. They line up perfectly with the low step in staggered purple line. The break is sequenced with the symmetric ejections.

Edited by kmortis:  Removed off topic content


Also, the mechanical floors with perimeter panels attached are ejected from the building just as the "hinge" is broken.

The small line marked in blue pulled inward along with the east face, and the NIST model cannot possibly explain why that happened while a failing core can explain it and many other observed phenomena besides.

I FOCUS ON COLLAPSE INITIATION, while the posters here seem incredibly ignorant of the processes.

Edited by kmortis:  Removed off topic content
__________________
Website

Last edited by kmortis; 29th June 2011 at 05:33 AM. Reason: Removed to comply with Rule 11
Major_Tom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th June 2011, 08:02 AM   #19
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
To review, my approach to studying WTC1 and 2 was quite simple.

First, I gathered the largest and most complete visual record possible (and linked to the best sets of video through CTV, Xenomorph and Femr)

Second, I pieced together the visual record to determine the collapse mode and global mass flow. This is summarized in the WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics.

With the complete visual record and a detailed knowledge and mapping of global mass flow,

Third, I put together an detailed list of observations, expecially of the crucial moments during collapse initiation by using the best work on this forum. These observations are compiled as a "feature list" or "roadmap" on each building.
You did two more steps; not necessarily in that sequence, but I'll mention them as 4th and 5th:

Fourth, you discarded, without stating reason all the non-visual record, such as the audio record, the eye witness record, the forensic engineering record, etc.

Fifth, you discarded nearly all of the visual evidence and instead focussed on a tiny set of quirks heavily biased towards your goal, without stating a good reason why you picked these and not any others.


Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
These were complied using the measurements of femr as one source.

Notice how the lists are assembled from the complete visual record.
I notice how you introduce all your discussions by presenting a tiny tiny subset of the complete visual record.

Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
You would have to be a simpleton to imagine that the videos and images used were cherry-picked.
Is this supposed to be an argument to support your particular and personal taste in cherry-picking? Then be informed that it fails to convince.

Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
Anyone is welcome to assemble a record of any visual observation from the complete visual record and add it to the list of observations to either confirm or contradict anything on the list but posters are too lazy to do that, so they somehow blame me for their own inability to assemble visual evidence.
Incorrect. I think I had at least half a dozend posts where I suggested the amendment of some observations (not all of them visual). You completely ignored them.

Edited by kmortis:  Removed off topic content and response to same

Last edited by kmortis; 29th June 2011 at 05:32 AM. Reason: Removed to comply with Rule 11
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th June 2011, 08:07 AM   #20
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
Ozeco wrote to femr about one link to a set of features on my website:

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post


Thanks. This is probably the first bit of detail I have seen for some time that has struck me as relevant to and affecting my own understanding of the events. Intriguing for understanding of initiation>>progression.
It was posted with many other details for a long time now. Why is it suddenly interesting when you have been ignoring long lists of these features including this one for a long time?

Why when he writes of one feature is it useful, while when I write of the exact same feature at just one part of a long sequenced list of observations it is worth ignoring?

THIS IS NOT NEW MATERIAL.
Edited by kmortis:  Removed off topic content
__________________
Website

Last edited by kmortis; 29th June 2011 at 05:31 AM. Reason: Removed to comply with Rule 11
Major_Tom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th June 2011, 09:08 AM   #21
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
Once again, only one aspect of the initiation process in which many events are seen:



Stage 1: Pull in along the green lines and the blue line. (Why the blue line..WAKE UP CALL)
Stage 2: snapping along purple bolt line while 7 symmetric ejections emerge from the red ovals along the 78th fl.

The relation between the ejection locations and the geometry of the purple line is pretty obvious.

Edited by kmortis:  Removed off topic content


Stage 3: Tilting
Stage 4: Emergence of a row of ejections along the 75th fl (lower red oval)
Stage 5: The beam flooring from the 75th fl west face is ejected out the west side of the building with the MER sheets still attached. This is the "breaking of the hinge".

Edited by kmortis:  Removed off topic content


All of this information is new. All basically ignored.
__________________
Website

Last edited by kmortis; 29th June 2011 at 05:30 AM. Reason: Removed to comply with Rule 11
Major_Tom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th June 2011, 01:25 PM   #22
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,871
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
You did two more steps; not necessarily in that sequence, but I'll mention them as 4th and 5th:

Fourth, you discarded, without stating reason all the non-visual record, such as the audio record, the eye witness record, the forensic engineering record, etc.

Fifth, you discarded nearly all of the visual evidence and instead focussed on a tiny set of quirks heavily biased towards your goal, without stating a good reason why you picked these and not any others.

I notice how you introduce all your discussions by presenting a tiny tiny subset of the complete visual record.


Is this supposed to be an argument to support your particular and personal taste in cherry-picking? Then be informed that it fails to convince.

Incorrect. I think I had at least half a dozend posts where I suggested the amendment of some observations (not all of them visual). You completely ignored them.

The OPs of your threads started with highly selected, small set ob features that can best be described as "quirks".
You completely refused to even debate that selection.
Therefore, your thread was dead on arrival.

Major Tom, mind answering Oystein's comments this time around, otherwise people might think you're avoiding it because you have no valid reply.
__________________
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
BasqueArch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th June 2011, 05:44 PM   #23
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
I'm in the middle of October - lots of laughing dogs. No surprise, I've yet to find a connection to a controlled demo.

Thing is, It doesn't even matter if I'm a jerk about it or not. People with 1,000x more patience than I'll ever have are ignored, dismissed and talked down to like they're children just as easy as I'd be (if they'd respond).

This thread has got nowhere. It's June, a full 8 months after TFK said:

Quote:
The terminology ain't the minefield. Trying to have a clear or civil conversation with you is.

And now, let's all watch you jump back on that hamster wheel of "you're wrong because I can change the meaning of the words …"
Friggin waste of time ...
Nothing has changed. No conclusion or even a straight answer to a more than respectful question. I simply ask how a given observation should change given two different scenario's (Fire/Aircraft or Controlled Demo) and nobody can even get that much. I'm going to venture a guess that when or if I decide to continue reading this thread up until the time I joined in March, that won't change. Their attention to detail is admirable - but if it doesn't lead anywhere, what's the point?

Its as if they got busted for going 100mph, but due to their new fangled super spectacular spedometer, they're going to go to court and fight the ticket because they know, for a fact that they were going 100.442mph. So the cop was wrong.

What's the end game? Where's the conspiracy? What should we be looking at? I asked femr for data on a building that was a known Controlled Demo. He complied, and when asked - "what is it about WTC 7 that is similar to that demo" (or something to that affect) what did FEMR do?

Ignore me. For smart people you two sure are childish.

Last edited by NoahFence; 27th June 2011 at 06:04 PM.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th June 2011, 01:29 PM   #24
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
I map the event itself instead of drifting off into La La land to "invent" yet another theory.

Why en the objects were tracked and measured, I found out that basically everything the NIST says about the initiation processes was untrue.

I posted this a while ago butr I can see in the currnet posts that nobody understood the information contained or even understood the NIST explanations well enoutgh to see a contradiction.

Even when contradictions are posted directly in front of the readers face, they are ignored. Even today posters remain ignorant of the actual movement while somehow imagining they "have studied the building ".



Collapse Initiation Sequence WTC1
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

Edited by kmortis:  Removed off topic content


Femr is one of the sources I use for measurements.

This is the best mapping of physical movement during the WTC1 collapse initiation process on the planet. Ignored.

Ozeco, if you actually learn what has been posted over and over again I wouldn't have to keep pointing out what I have posted many times.

In the case of WTC2, I just posted a collapse initiation model based on a sequence of 5 distinct observable phenomena. FEMR MENTIONED ONLY ONE OBJECT ON A LONG LIST POSTED EARLIER.
Why don't we start your "features list" at the moment the plane impacted the tower? Wouldn't that be the logical "collapse initiation point"? Starting at any point after that would be dismissing a lot of important data.

So, what was your reasoning for starting your "features list" where you did, instead of at the beginning?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by kmortis; 29th June 2011 at 05:29 AM. Reason: Removed previously moderated content
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th June 2011, 03:24 PM   #25
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Why don't we start your "features list" at the moment the plane impacted the tower? Wouldn't that be the logical "collapse initiation point"? Starting at any point after that would be dismissing a lot of important data.

So, what was your reasoning for starting your "features list" where you did, instead of at the beginning?
Since the towers stood for a while without being in collapse for a while, it may be appropriate to only list observations very close in time to the beginning of the main collapse event under the heading "Collapse initiation features".
But Major_Tom did not even bother to list the plane impacts and the fires under the "pre-collapse features" heading. That feature list indeed was very very strange, and no explanation given.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th June 2011, 07:19 PM   #26
SkepticOfLies
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 62
No truther can write me a story as to how the workers got in and out of the WTC building's without being noticed. Not one. These people seem to think that the government has some NWO ninja demolition team on deck, ready to rig up a building with Mr. Miyagi like speed and precision, without being detected. Plus even a building like Building 7 would be a record-sized demolition, the biggest building to have been rigged before still took a full 6 months to prepare.



How did the thousands of workers not notice the building being rigged? Unless there was a time over an extended period of months where there were no workers, this would be impossible. You have to knock down walls to get to the support, I'm I supposed to believe that the team was knocking down walls, getting dry wall in the workers faces, cutting beams, and having sparks hit their desk, without them saying a peep? Did the demo team summon a demon to kill the critical thinking of everyone in the building so they wouldn't see them stripping down the building and strapping countless explosives on the beams?



Basically, the OS is so much more of a solid theory than any possible scenario involving a controlled demolition. Can any truther get a blueprint of Building 7, and a record of how many workers were working each day, and present a compelling case as to how the shadowy demolition team would get away with it? I'm sure if you presented us with facts showing how it was possible to even set up, then we might be more open to believing that findings of thermitic material are even relevant to your case.

Last edited by SkepticOfLies; 28th June 2011 at 07:21 PM.
SkepticOfLies is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th June 2011, 07:54 PM   #27
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
...If you remain ignorant of basically every feature I have posted, what can I do to help you become less ignorant of the collapse initiaton processes at this stage of the exchange?...
What you can do Major_Tom is to recognise the point I have made several times and respond to it.
There are two steps you can take:
1) Recognise that the "features" you identify are not "collapse processes". The "features" are bits of evidence, building blocks or links in the chain of an explanation of a collapse process. None of those "features" makes a full explanation - they need to be linked together in a complete explanation.
2) Once you recognise the true relationship of features to "collapse process" then you can take the next step - describe this "collapse process" for us to discuss.
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
...The information you now request has been in front of you for a long time, in the threads that were removed.[/b]
Maybe the "bits" are there - it's doubtful if even that is true because you are trying to limit the evidence to those bits of visual evidence which you approve. But the main problem is that all you have presented is "bits" - no coherent full explanation of a collapse process.

Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
If you effectively brag of your own inability to examine evidence or retain any information, why would you demand I overcome that problem for you?
You are the one making the claim. It is your burden of proof to put forward the claim. You have not done so. It is not our responsibility to take a selected scattering of bits evidence and attempt to match the "collapse process" which you are claiming.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th June 2011, 05:04 AM   #28
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
Edited by kmortis:  Removed off topic content






If I claimed that the seven symmetric ejections along the 78th fl were caused by little green men with space beams, can I get the threads moved back?
__________________
Website

Last edited by kmortis; 29th June 2011 at 05:28 AM. Reason: Removed to comply with Rule 11
Major_Tom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th June 2011, 05:22 AM   #29
kmortis
Biomechanoid
Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
 
kmortis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Texas (aka SOMD)
Posts: 32,151
Mod WarningIf you want to discuss Forum Moderation, do so in the Forum Moderation forum, not here. This includes any discussion about the movment or merging of threads. To continue to do so here is to violate Rule 11, and further action will be taken.

Am I understood? Good.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.
Responding to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By:kmortis
__________________
-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
kmortis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th June 2011, 05:35 AM   #30
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,871
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
Edited by kmortis:  Removed off topic content


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

If I claimed that the seven symmetric ejections along the 78th fl were caused by little green men with space beams, can I get the threads moved back?
You're not good at humor, stick with grim and shrill.
__________________
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
BasqueArch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th June 2011, 05:41 AM   #31
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
In order to proceed, I need to know what is necessary to keep a discussion in this forum, since I have not had much luck doing so.

I have stuck to what are called "observables" and have steered clear of speculating about things I cannot see. I realize it is the wrong technique here but if perhaps Oystien can explain what I am doing wrong and how to "spruce up" my posts to meet currenct standards, I would appreciate thye advice


SIncerely and respectfully, MT

Mod InfoKeep it to the topic of WTC 1 & 2 collapse* and any evidence you have to convince either that it was or was not a conspiracy. Do not discuss other posters, fourm moderation, or anything else that is not connected to that topic. You can be as technical as you like.

This goes for all the posters in this thread.



*At least that's what I've been able to gleen to be the topic here. If I'm wrong, please replace with the actual topic.
Posted By:kmortis
__________________
Website

Last edited by kmortis; 29th June 2011 at 06:12 AM.
Major_Tom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th June 2011, 08:21 AM   #32
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
In order to proceed, I need to know what is necessary to keep a discussion in this forum, since I have not had much luck doing so.
Discussion of what? You fail to grasp that the failure of the two towers was immensely complex, involving many many unknowns. ANY recreation of what happened will be wrong in minor details because it it based on incomplete information. NIST was no doubt wrong in minor details and you are also wrong and so would any other recreation.

It matters not one iota that NIST did not get it 100% correct. No competent engineer would expect them to do so as 100% accuracy is impossible.

Unless you can show that features of the collapse REQUIRES inputs other than the aircraft collisions you are wasting your, and our, time.
sheeplesnshills is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th June 2011, 04:08 PM   #33
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
In order to proceed, I need to know what is necessary to keep a discussion in this forum, since I have not had much luck doing so.

I have stuck to what are called "observables" and have steered clear of speculating about things I cannot see. I realize it is the wrong technique here but if perhaps Oystien can explain what I am doing wrong and how to "spruce up" my posts to meet currenct standards, I would appreciate thye advice


SIncerely and respectfully, MT

Mod InfoKeep it to the topic of WTC 1 & 2 collapse* and any evidence you have to convince either that it was or was not a conspiracy. Do not discuss other posters, fourm moderation, or anything else that is not connected to that topic. You can be as technical as you like.

This goes for all the posters in this thread.



*At least that's what I've been able to gleen to be the topic here. If I'm wrong, please replace with the actual topic.
Posted By:kmortis
You are nit sticking to ALL that you can see, but rather to a tiny, quirky subset of the visual observations. Most notably, plane crashes are absent from your list of relevant pre-collapse features, which is a very idiosyncratic choice, to say the least.

However, there are many features that are not part of the video and photographic record, but also not speculation at all: For example the audio record (which lacks the sound of explosions loud enough, sharp enough and timed to be consistent with steel-cutting charges), the engineering record (the blueprints, which by the way you DO use), the forensic record as documented by FEMA, WPI, NIST and others, and also as published by the FBI. Plenty of eye witness testimonies help to connect some dots - these are also not necessarily a matter of speculation.

You need to explain why you discard the vast majority of observed features, and picked that small subset, if not with the intention of supporting a specific foregone conclusion!
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th June 2011, 05:45 PM   #34
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Someone wake me up when either of those two Rhodes Scholars decides to actually make a point. As it stands today, they're the most whiny truthers I've ever come across, able to discuss matters in a tone slightly below my 3 year old niece.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th July 2011, 11:14 AM   #35
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,871
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
In order to proceed, I need to know what is necessary to keep a discussion in this forum, since I have not had much luck doing so.

I have stuck to what are called "observables" and have steered clear of speculating about things I cannot see. I realize it is the wrong technique here but if perhaps Oystien can explain what I am doing wrong and how to "spruce up" my posts to meet currenct standards, I would appreciate thye advice


SIncerely and respectfully, MT

Mod InfoKeep it to the topic of WTC 1 & 2 collapse* and any evidence you have to convince either that it was or was not a conspiracy. Do not discuss other posters, fourm moderation, or anything else that is not connected to that topic. You can be as technical as you like.

This goes for all the posters in this thread.



*At least that's what I've been able to gleen to be the topic here. If I'm wrong, please replace with the actual topic.
Posted By:kmortis
MT - We all know your conspiracy that dare not speak its name.

Just say: " I believe that (here insert feature) is evidence that CD was used at WTC1,2. because (here insert error)" and you can continue dumping your observables.
__________________
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
BasqueArch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th July 2011, 08:35 AM   #36
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
 
Andy_Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
Has the Major actualy posted his theory of what caused the collpase? Was it explosives? Thermite? Space Rays? Ninja Turtles?

It's all very well listing 'features' and spamming the same picture with added cloured lines but that doesn't say anything about what caused the collapse if not aircraft crashes and fire.
Andy_Ross is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th July 2011, 09:57 AM   #37
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Neither he nor Femr has posted a theory, and they never will.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th July 2011, 07:25 AM   #38
Seymour Butz
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 884
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Has the Major actualy posted his theory of what caused the collpase? Was it explosives? Thermite? Space Rays? Ninja Turtles?

It's all very well listing 'features' and spamming the same picture with added cloured lines but that doesn't say anything about what caused the collapse if not aircraft crashes and fire.

It's true that these 2 [people] studiously avoid making positive statements on that.
Edited by Tricky:  Edited for rule 12.



But MT has let slip on occasion that since the core columns above the impact zone were bolted together, then it is/was/can be explained by secret ninjas unbolting them so that they fail.

Of course this theory requires something else to make it plausible:

1- either that the planes were remote controlled to hit at a precise spot on the towers that would result in its collapse after some impact and fire damage. Which would be quite difficult to predict with any accuracy.

or

2- the NWO hired really good suicide pilots

Last edited by Tricky; 9th July 2011 at 03:43 AM.
Seymour Butz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th July 2011, 09:19 AM   #39
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
"2- the NWO hired really good suicide pilots "

I like the simplest inside job theory best....the NWO sent someone to whisper the idea in KSMs ear......
sheeplesnshills is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th July 2011, 11:11 AM   #40
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
 
TruthersLie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Has the Major actualy posted his theory of what caused the collpase? Was it explosives? Thermite? Space Rays? Ninja Turtles?

It's all very well listing 'features' and spamming the same picture with added cloured lines but that doesn't say anything about what caused the collapse if not aircraft crashes and fire.
Mothra.
__________________
"There are submissions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but that's about as convincing as submissions to the Journal of Intelligent Design Studies." –Noam Chomsky (and this can be said of ANY and all twoof papers)
TruthersLie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:37 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.