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 9th July 2011, 12:15 AM   #41
Oz1976
Muse
 
Oz1976's Avatar
 
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.
Oz1976 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 9th July 2011, 04:36 AM   #42
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by Oz1976 View Post
femr2's theories.
What theories would that be exactly ? Quotes please.
femr2 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 9th July 2011, 07:45 AM   #43
Major_Tom
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

Last edited by Major_Tom; 9th July 2011 at 07:54 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 9th July 2011, 11:42 AM   #44
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
What theories would that be exactly ? Quotes please.
Your stand is, Fictional Official Theory. Have you erased the post? You tend to erase your failed statements. Your theory is inside job,

Major Tom has bigger delusions on the issue past inside job...

Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
... show that 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.
...

Last edited by beachnut; 9th July 2011 at 11:52 AM.
beachnut 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 9th July 2011, 07:48 PM   #45
Oz1976
Muse
 
Oz1976's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 720
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
What theories would that be exactly ? Quotes please.
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.

Last edited by Oz1976; 9th July 2011 at 07:50 PM.
Oz1976 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 10th July 2011, 06:54 AM   #46
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by Oz1976 View Post
Already answered by Beach
LMAO. There is no such thing as "The Official Theory". Where may I find the tome ?

Quote:
but you go right ahead and take that passive aggressive tone you do so well...it's neat.
There's nothing aggressive about asking you to justify your statement, which you have completely failed to do.

Quote:
Did you change the names of your youtube videos?
Nope.

Quote:
They still say "demolition"?
Some indeed have that keyword. Useful for folk using such fangled beasties as search engines.

Quote:
That's clearly what YOU think happened to them
That is what you base your opinions upon ? ROFL. That's all you have ? Funny stuff.

Quote:
so...yeah...that's your THEORY
You can believe whatever you please. Try using a search engine with the keywords "assumption is the mother of all"

Unbelievably weak response, oz.

What theories would that be exactly ? Quotes please.
femr2 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 10th July 2011, 10:09 AM   #47
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
LMAO. There is no such thing as "The Official Theory". Where may I find the tome ?


There's nothing aggressive about asking you to justify your statement, which you have completely failed to do.


Nope.


Some indeed have that keyword. Useful for folk using such fangled beasties as search engines.


That is what you base your opinions upon ? ROFL. That's all you have ? Funny stuff.


You can believe whatever you please. Try using a search engine with the keywords "assumption is the mother of all"

Unbelievably weak response, oz.

What theories would that be exactly ? Quotes please.
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?

Last edited by beachnut; 10th July 2011 at 10:15 AM.
beachnut 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 10th July 2011, 12:36 PM   #48
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Your theory is 911 was an inside job
Incorrect. Why do you make up lies beachnut ? Wh

Quote:
your stand is, "fictional official theory"
Where is the document stating "The Official Theory" beachnut ?

Quote:
You called the theory, which you say does not exist, the "fictional official theory"
Absolutely. There is no such thing as "The Official Theory".

Quote:
Big proof of your bias for an inside job, your 60+ videos titled, "demolition"
ROFL. Try the following keywords in a search engine ..."assumption is the mother of all"

Quote:
lies from 911 truth which you share here at a skeptics forum
Incorrect. Why do you make up lies beachnut ?

Quote:
Why are your videos titled "demolition"
For search purposes.
femr2 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 10th July 2011, 12:41 PM   #49
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
Incorrect. Why do you make up lies beachnut ? Wh


Where is the document stating "The Official Theory" beachnut ?


Absolutely. There is no such thing as "The Official Theory".


ROFL. Try the following keywords in a search engine ..."assumption is the mother of all"


Incorrect. Why do you make up lies beachnut ?


For search purposes.
What are you saying then? What is your theory?
dafydd 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 10th July 2011, 12:59 PM   #50
Major_Tom
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

Last edited by Major_Tom; 10th July 2011 at 01:03 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 10th July 2011, 01:26 PM   #51
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
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.
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 10th July 2011, 02:00 PM   #52
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
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.)
Isn't ten years long enough? How slowly do truthers measure and observe?
dafydd 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 10th July 2011, 02:07 PM   #53
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
LMAO. There is no such thing as "The Official Theory". Where may I find the tome ?


There's nothing aggressive about asking you to justify your statement, which you have completely failed to do.


Nope.


Some indeed have that keyword. Useful for folk using such fangled beasties as search engines.


That is what you base your opinions upon ? ROFL. That's all you have ? Funny stuff.


You can believe whatever you please. Try using a search engine with the keywords "assumption is the mother of all"

Unbelievably weak response, oz.

What theories would that be exactly ? Quotes please.
Excellent arguments there.
tsig 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 10th July 2011, 02:13 PM   #54
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Isn't ten years long enough? How slowly do truthers measure and observe?
.0000000000000001/pixel per second.
tsig 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 10th July 2011, 02:18 PM   #55
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Wow. That's a lot longer than free-fall.

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 10th July 2011, 04:17 PM   #56
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,871
What femr2 Believes – Theories and Opinions:

Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
Quote:
beachnut
..... Your theory is 911 was an inside job
Incorrect. Why do you make up lies beachnut ?
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.

Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
What theories would that be exactly ? Quotes please.


Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
.....
What theories would that be exactly ? Quotes please.

Here, in chronological order:
What femr2 Believes – Theories and Opinions:

8/3/2009 All Tall Buildings Designed To Be Brought Down
Quote:
Another very important factor to bear in mind is that, as with all tall buildings, specific information relating to how one might go about bringing them down was known whilst they were still om the drafting table. The execution of each descent was, to put it mildly, expertly accomplished...IMO http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post4166.html#p4166
8/21/2009 Aircraft Were Under Automated Control
Quote:
…... Is it, in my opinion, probable that the aircraft were under automated control ? Yes. Is it, in my opinion, probable that the aircraft were under human control from three inexperienced pilots ? No. But that means nothing at all. Simply an opinion. I am spending my time actively 'proving' that the NIST Flight 175 impact orientation is wrong. How are you helping ? http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post4409.html#p4409
9/2/2009 Must Focus On Showing Every Fault With NIST
Quote:
I think the ultimate answer is simply 'confirmation or not' of 'demolition'.
For WTC 1 & 2 we must focus on showing every fault with the NIST report.
The rest of our focus should be on the descent of WTC 7. http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post4605.html#p4605
10/15/2009 Charges Initiated Descent
Quote:
Quote:
If any posters believe otherwise I would like them to explain how these charges worked!
Do you mean the charges which inititated descent, utilising the requirement to sever 96-98 core, blow the roof ( confirmed by radical increase in smoke ejecta ) closely timed with charges in upper and lower mechanical floor regions to ensure that gravity did it's thing, followed by...... Booom, boom, booom. Three charges synchronised to ensure that the central core did not remain upstanding, but instead descended figuratively into the basement. Though in practice it actually went....boooooom, and ended up in 36ft sections around ground zero.
Any charges would be directed towards the core. There would absolutely no rational reason to think that any of the actual destructive implementation would be visible to the public in the slightest (other than the obvious requirement to totally mash-up the mechanical floor regions)http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post4926.html#p4926
10/31/2009 MIHOP Destroyed Core
Quote:
…..From the MIHOP perspective, I think it would be reasonable to suggest that linear rate destruction of the core could be an explanation, and the orientation of the core in both WTC 1 and 2 would be the right way round for the ejecta to be limited to limited faces... http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post5483.html#p5483
1/8/2010 Noise Of Explosive Charges Not An Issue
Quote:
…..
Quote:
how would you severe the WTC IZ core columns?
I'd use explosive cutter charges, specifically ones which result in a plasma cut. Noise is not an issue for me. http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post7745.html#p7745
1/8/2010 Explosions Weaken Base, Job Finished At Initiation. Noise Not A Problem.
Quote:
I do think it would be logical to use the impact time-frame to *weaken* the base columns (inner core only) and there is suggestion of explosions around that time.

I do think that it then becomes much easier, and require much less energy, to *finish the job* of severing the base inner core columns at initiation.

The question must be...what caused the fireball. Thermite doesn't sound like an obvious answer. Never seen a thermite fireball. Have you ?

I am not too concerned about noise-levels. I have heard all of the arguments which say that because video contains no loud explosions, that that proves no explosives were used. Absolute rubbish as far as I'm concerned, and I'm pretty clued-up on audio. In video, two 110 storey buildings come crashing to the ground with the sound being quieter than a nearby cough. The noise level from the descent itself should, and most certainly was, incredibly loud, akin to explosions of great magnitude. That we don't hear that either in video clarifies things.

A big problem with base core sever is the local ground linkage, which should result in some seismic signature. Perhaps time to drop in seismic timing data here.

We should not get too hung up on the actual accelerant used, be it RDX, supernanothermiate, exotic shaped charges, resonant matter disruptors, space beams, etc etc. If the behaviour suggests inner core sever at the base, that's good enough for the model.

Still think it would be more practical to chop the tower into three sections delimited by the mechanical floor regions. http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post7743.html#p7743
1/17/2010 Small Explosives Used High Up At Internal Structures.
Quote:
There are still many who believe that the only way for the towers to be demolished was the ol' boom-boom-boom of per-floor installed charges. It's just not a viable option, utterly unnecessary and it would not look the way it does in video.

All of the arguments about supersonic shock wave for HE are valid, in terms of debris ejecta, limiting potential use of some *explosives* strictly to internal structures, being relatively *small*, and relatively high up.

If supernanothermiate was used, it is more likely to have been in a non-explosive mode.
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post7912.html#p7912
1/17/2010 Supernanothermite Used To Invoke Initiation, Manipulation Of Few Cores, Post Descent Core Cleaning.
Quote:
If cutter charges were used, why bother to use exotic materials when development of other simpler materials has been around for decades ?

Do you think that an R&D lab somewhere, in the last fifty years, may have been tasked with improving cutter charges ? Make them smaller. Make them simpler. Make them quieter. Make them wireless. Hey, forget the wireless, we can use the miles of unused network cables running up and down the core of the building if we really need to. Nobody takes any notice of IT bods playing with wires. They are invisible. The contents of the buildings were pretty much powdered, including computers, fixtures and (a bit macabre) people. No reason to think that if there were any devices installed that there should be any trace of such devices afterwards. Should we see *evidence* of the use of any kind of explosives on the resultant columns ? Maybe. Let's pop along to the huge warehouse with each and every piece of steel from Ground Zero in it and go through each of them with a fine tooth-comb. I lean towards invoked initiation, manipulation of a few special floors, and a little bit of post descent core cleansing, to finish the job. That only leave a small number of columns which would show anything *interesting*. Gravity is our friend, and he can't be ignored.

Using supernanothermiate (or something similar) to rapidly heat structural elements would not create noise, would explain quite a few observable building behaviours (especially close to each initiation) and would not need a horde of *ninjas* to install.

All speculation to some extent. I think the most productive route right now is the development of the recent descent and initiation models being discussed locally.
….
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post7914.html#p7914
1/23/2010 MIHOP. Large Numbers Of Explosives Demolition ! Deemphasized. Calls For Impartiality.
Quote:
I'm openly on the side of the fence of MIHOP, however, there is a world of difference between saying MIHOP and saying explosive demolition, with an exclamation mark.

The latter implies all sorts of unquantified and inplausible events, such as the installation of large numbers of very quiet non-explosive explosives on every floor(ish), that to my mind would look very different to what we witness in video. (without getting into the padded cell of audio issues)

It is also quite useful, here, to remain fairly impartial, as we all (on the whole) focus on progressing and increasing the detail of studies, rather than shoot from the hip at every corner. There's a couple of phrases kicking around here...the devil is in the details...observation is far ahead of theory...

I would urge you to have a good trawl through lots of the threads here, with emphasis on those focussed upon Initiation, Inward Bowing and Runaway Open Office Space Destruction (ROOSD/OOSRD/OOS). There is specific discussion of the West face ejecta, under a heading of linear/terminal velocity. I also have a simple energetics based model (here) which may interest you.
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post8133.html#p8133
4/19/2010 Explosives Not Required All The Way Down. MIHOP = Deliberate And Intentional *Bring Down*
Quote:
You'd be out of here, psik. Your argument comes from nothing. Nowt. Zip. Nada. Misunderstanding. Hand waving. Do you REALLY think that explosives were required ALL the way down ? There I must mention hushabooms. I'm in very little doubt about the deliberate and intentional *bring down*, call it MIHOP, but the ridiculous and naieve (sp?) is just that. Ridiculous. Act together, psik. After many long years of, in all honesty, slight ignorance, and it is slight, I managed to get to grips with the, frankly, flimsy perimeter-floor slab-core connection strength conundrum. It's a right pain, but it matches observables and explains a whole heap of the behaviour. If you choose, as I do, to retain a MIHOP perspective, then not realising that you MUST be fully aware of the actual environment within which you are proclaiming knowledge of, you MUST be aware of the realities. Even if it took 20 floors of deliberate destruction to *get it going*, ......... once started, it was going to ground. End of story. Vertically, and semi-symmetrical.

The QUESTION is that of initiation. Scale of initiation. Condition of initiation. http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post9718.html#p9718
4/26/2010 I’m MIHOP.
Quote:
….. No, it wasn't. Am openly MIHOP, but these observational errors need to cease. Savvy ? http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post9854.html#p9854
5/5/2010
Quote:
…… I've already made it clear to you that I'm of the MIHOP variety. http://the911forum.freeforums.org/ post10303.html#p10303
6/20/2010 Some Truth Movement Claims Ridiculous, Not MIHOP
Quote:
I would have thought the perimeter peeling study performed by MT (and you know what side of the *fence* MT leans on) would be enough for you to know a few basics. I would have thought that, as you know, I lean on the MIHOP side of the fence too, so why is it that you you're still not seeing how ridiculous some of the *truth movement* claims actually are ? Floor by floor explosives, with zero visual cues, no actual requirement to do so after initiation, just reams of information you've read through here which really should be helping you to throw out rubbish *ideas* and focus on the more important and critical questions. http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post11270.html#p11270
11/12/2010 Prefers MIHOP To Controlled Demolition.
Quote:
Quote:
has controlled demolition been ruled out for the twin towers?
Not completely. I don't like the phrase, too many silly assumptions get bundled in, and so prefer MIHOP. http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post13684.html#p13684
Beachnut wasn’t fooled.
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

Last edited by BasqueArch; 10th July 2011 at 05:32 PM.
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 10th July 2011, 05:46 PM   #57
Oz1976
Muse
 
Oz1976's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 720
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
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.)
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?
Oz1976 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 10th July 2011, 05:49 PM   #58
Oz1976
Muse
 
Oz1976's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 720
Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
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
8/21/2009 Aircraft Were Under Automated Control
9/2/2009 Must Focus On Showing Every Fault With NIST

10/15/2009 Charges Initiated Descent
10/31/2009 MIHOP Destroyed Core
1/8/2010 Noise Of Explosive Charges Not An Issue
1/8/2010 Explosions Weaken Base, Job Finished At Initiation. Noise Not A Problem.
1/17/2010 Small Explosives Used High Up At Internal Structures.
1/17/2010 Supernanothermite Used To Invoke Initiation, Manipulation Of Few Cores, Post Descent Core Cleaning.
1/23/2010 MIHOP. Large Numbers Of Explosives Demolition ! Deemphasized. Calls For Impartiality.
4/19/2010 Explosives Not Required All The Way Down. MIHOP = Deliberate And Intentional *Bring Down*
4/26/2010 I’m MIHOP.
5/5/2010 6/20/2010 Some Truth Movement Claims Ridiculous, Not MIHOP11/12/2010 Prefers MIHOP To Controlled Demolition.
Beachnut wasn’t fooled.
Have a nice day.
Heheheheh in femr2's words that would be: OWNED
Oz1976 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 10th July 2011, 06:40 PM   #59
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
What femr2 Believes – Theories and Opinions:
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:
Not at all. Did you think it was intended to be such ? A concise emotive opinion, though perhaps a little immature. (Must remember am not in t'pub ). (Although it seems very, er, boomy, there's good reason for my descriptions. I'll have to get around to highlighting the audio on a couple of clips to clarify the meaning. Will do so when I have time, and will also clarify the intent of phrases such as "blow the roof"...hat truss....)

I would however be interested in thoughts on the mechanical floor region behaviour, for both the visible ejecta similarities between aircraft impact and descent, and the effect of the significant strength increase upon collapse 'models', especially rates, jolts and debris pattern.
Many of the quotes are out of context, but for sure I've openly leaned on the MIHOP side of the fence from the perspective of discussion. I've even looked at the possibility of floor by floor explosives...and ruled it out

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.
femr2 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 10th July 2011, 07:00 PM   #60
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by Oz1976 View Post
"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.
What you think is ridiculous doesn't concern me. Doesn't change the reasoning behind the naming convention.

Quote:
I guess your video "WTC7 Pyroclastic Like Dust Ejecta Before Roofline Descent" is just for "keyword" searches too eh?
To a certain extent, absolutely.
femr2 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 10th July 2011, 07:36 PM   #61
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
ROFL. Splendid. Notice the gradual change in position ?
Yes.
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
Many of the quotes are out of context, but for sure I've openly leaned on the MIHOP side of the fence from the perspective of discussion. I've even looked at the possibility of floor by floor explosives...and ruled it out ...
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.
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
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...
...and that could be far too subtle for this setting.
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 10th July 2011, 07:51 PM   #62
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
Originally Posted by Oz1976 View Post
Heheheheh in femr2's words that would be: OWNED
ROFLMAO

Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
If you think you know what my viewpoint is, I can pretty much guarantee you're wrong
Yes, it would be foolish to speculate about the evolving views of an inveterate dissembler.
W.D.Clinger 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 11th July 2011, 07:25 AM   #63
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
LOL

"Supernanothermite"?!?
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 11th July 2011, 07:30 AM   #64
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
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
8/21/2009 Aircraft Were Under Automated Control
9/2/2009 Must Focus On Showing Every Fault With NIST

10/15/2009 Charges Initiated Descent
10/31/2009 MIHOP Destroyed Core
1/8/2010 Noise Of Explosive Charges Not An Issue
1/8/2010 Explosions Weaken Base, Job Finished At Initiation. Noise Not A Problem.
1/17/2010 Small Explosives Used High Up At Internal Structures.
1/17/2010 Supernanothermite Used To Invoke Initiation, Manipulation Of Few Cores, Post Descent Core Cleaning.
1/23/2010 MIHOP. Large Numbers Of Explosives Demolition ! Deemphasized. Calls For Impartiality.
4/19/2010 Explosives Not Required All The Way Down. MIHOP = Deliberate And Intentional *Bring Down*
4/26/2010 I’m MIHOP.
5/5/2010 6/20/2010 Some Truth Movement Claims Ridiculous, Not MIHOP11/12/2010 Prefers MIHOP To Controlled Demolition.
Beachnut wasn’t fooled.
Have a nice day.
VERY well done. I guess that closes the book on those pretenders. No further need to delve into the minutae to figure out their position. It's well stated. Thanks.
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 11th July 2011, 07:33 AM   #65
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Quote:
I guess your video "WTC7 Pyroclastic Like Dust Ejecta Before Roofline Descent" is just for "keyword" searches too eh?
Quote:
To a certain extent, absolutely.
You don't really think you're fooling anybody, do you?
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 11th July 2011, 07:43 AM   #66
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
LOL

"Supernanothermite"?!?
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".
W.D.Clinger 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 11th July 2011, 03:58 PM   #67
Major_Tom
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

Last edited by Major_Tom; 11th July 2011 at 04:01 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 11th July 2011, 04:01 PM   #68
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
"The" government did it?

Which government? There is more than one, you know, and some of them are peer-reviewed certified evildoers.

I'll stick to the visual record. Unless those responsible spray-painted their names on the outside of the buildings, the visual record can show you what was done but not who did it.
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'.
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 12th July 2011, 02:11 AM   #69
Cuddles
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,774
Mod WarningDerail split to here. And given that this is a split from an already split thread, expect suspensions to follow next time you start derailing.
Responding to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By:Cuddles
Cuddles 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 12th July 2011, 08:30 PM   #70
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
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?
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
...
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?
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:
This is intelligent and evidence-based discussion? The 9/11 Forum, Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues? beachnut is all you can come up with when you are sitting on what would be Pulitzer Prize winning stuff? Maybe your fellow 911 Forum "engineers" will help you do the math for your feature list. What do you think? When will you conclude your work and offer a final conclusion? It has been over 9 years. Looks like Balsamo has joined your intelligent and evidence-based discussion as a sock. Is "intelligent and evidence-based discussion" used in the same way as the name 911 truth? I see I am CE's personal beachy. How cool, and intelligent is that? Wow.

Last edited by kmortis; 14th July 2011 at 07:40 AM. Reason: fixed quote tag
beachnut 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 13th July 2011, 01:52 PM   #71
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
And the purpose of this thread is......

I need to know if I am to stay on topic. Which posts belong in the other thread as opposed to this thread? What is not allowed in this thread that was allowed in the other?

Please explain the acceptable range of each thread because i can't see a single freaking difference between them.
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.
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 13th July 2011, 03:02 PM   #72
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
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'
alienentity 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 13th July 2011, 04:32 PM   #73
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
And that is what you call "debating"?


So this thread is just like that thread, but with the posting history erased?

Like a fresh start after months of posting?

Oystein, can you explain the difference between threads?
Months ofd posting? Ahem!


On May 19th, 2011, you started a fresh thread, which you called "WTC2 Feature List, Complete Collapse Model":

Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
This is the first complete mapping of the WTC2 collapse process available in the public domain.

The collapse initiation process is found to consist of a 5 stage sequence of visible events. Original failure lines along the east and west faces are identified.

Collapse progression follows the Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics Model. The mechanics consists of a ROOSD process followed by the dropping of the 4 perimeter walls.


The list of observed features:

BEFORE THE COLLAPSE---------
Pressure Bursts from E Face, Fls 77 and 80
Inward Bowing of East Perimeter
Molten Substance Seen Falling from near NW Corner
E Face Pressurized Pulse Just Before Initiation
.
------COLLAPSE INITIATION MODEL---------
First E Face Ejections Along 78th and 75 Fl Slabs
78th and 75th Rows of Ejections Sharply DIscontinuous
78th fl E Face Ejections in Detail
East Perimeter Snaps Cleanly Along Bolt Seams
Flash and Destruction of NE Corner, Fl 90
Concave Roofline Deformation While Tilting
Pressure Punches along N Face as Building Tilts
Early West Face Ejections Above and Below MER Panels
W MER Perimeter w/Beam Flooring Ejected from Building
75-78th Fl W MER Panels Ripped along Failure Lines
.
-----COLLAPSE PROGRESSION MODEL-----
East Wall Motion
West Wall Motion
South Wall Motion
North Wall Motion
NE Corner Remained Standing
Ejections From Below WTC2 Collapse Front
Mechanical Floor Ejections
Free-fall Comparison: Tracking Earliest Falling Object
Portion of Core Survives Initial Collapse
Rubble Layout and Column Conditions Recorded

8 posts and about 4.5 hours later, I addressed the OP thusly:

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
...
The list of observed features:

BEFORE THE COLLAPSE---------
Pressure Bursts from E Face, Fls 77 and 80
Inward Bowing of East Perimeter
Molten Substance Seen Falling from near NW Corner
E Face Pressurized Pulse Just Before Initiation
.
[url="http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page &PAGE_id=235&MMN_position=451:451"]
...
Is this list of observed features before the collapse exhaustive? If not, why did you pick these four, and none of the other probably hundreds and thousands observations made before the collapse? Do you feel that none of the other hundreds or thousands features pre-collapse ought to get explained?

(Same question could be asked for collapse initiation and collapse progress features, of course)

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:

What were your criteria when you cherry-picked that very short list of visual features?

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?

Last edited by kmortis; 14th July 2011 at 07:42 AM. Reason: fixed formatting
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 13th July 2011, 05:11 PM   #74
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
Can anyone explain what the topic of this thread is so we know what to stick to?
Yes, and moderator kmortis provided an adequate explanation on 29 June. See the mod box in post #31.

Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
Regular JREF members have months of documented mistakes within their posts in the unmentionable threads.

If the mistakes were understood, you wouldn't suffer from so much amnesia.
Then you should identify those mistakes and explain them.

You'd rather whine. For example:
  • You asked me to create a new thread dedicated to pointing out my mistakes.
  • I created that thread at your request.
  • I informed you of that thread and gave you a link to it.
  • You have not yet posted anything to that thread.
If you're too lazy to identify our mistakes in threads you ask us to create specifically for that purpose, then why should we be impressed by your whining about our mistakes?

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.

Last edited by W.D.Clinger; 13th July 2011 at 05:13 PM. Reason: added word in gray
W.D.Clinger 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 13th July 2011, 06:29 PM   #75
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Yes, and moderator kmortis provided an adequate explanation on 29 June. See the mod box in post #31.



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

Last edited by Major_Tom; 13th July 2011 at 06:44 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 13th July 2011, 07:57 PM   #76
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
You want me to repeat the same arguments I had in the thread with the long posting history of common JREF mistakes?
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.

Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
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?
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.

Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
You need me to explain to you why these things are conspiracy worthy?
.......................
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.
W.D.Clinger 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 14th July 2011, 12:48 AM   #77
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
Major Tom again failed to answer a serios question to his own earlier OP, the one about his own WTC2 feature lists. So I have to bump:



Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Months ofd posting? Ahem!


On May 19th, 2011, you started a frethread, 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...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...postcount=1183

I repeated my on-topic question:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1185

Instead of answering, you again whined:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1187

I asked my on-topic question again, regarding your topic, the WTC2 feature lists:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...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:

What were your criteria when you cherry-picked that very short list of visual features?

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?

Last edited by kmortis; 14th July 2011 at 07:44 AM. Reason: fixed the fomatting here too
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 14th July 2011, 05:17 AM   #78
kmortis
Biomechanoid
Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
 
kmortis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Texas (aka SOMD)
Posts: 32,151
Mod WarningWeird, I do believe that I warned you lot about discussing moderation in thread. Yes, yes I did...



Originally Posted by kmortis View Post
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
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

Last edited by kmortis; 14th July 2011 at 07:37 AM.
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 14th July 2011, 05:36 AM   #79
Major_Tom
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

Last edited by Major_Tom; 14th July 2011 at 05:42 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 14th July 2011, 07:17 AM   #80
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
You need me to explain to you why these things are conspiracy worthy?
.......................
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.
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
WD Clinger, you focussed on one item of one list concerning vectors and tilt angle.

Here is the WTC1 list:
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.

Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
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 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:
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Life is already too short. The sensible thing to do is to ignore your thread entirely. The second most sensible thing to do is to spot-check your work, as tfk did in post #383 and as many others of us have done with details related to our own individual areas of expertise. If our spot-checking exposes errors, as it has, we have even less reason to pay attention to your claims.

That's remarkable, because you had given us zero reason to pay attention to your claims even before we began the spot-checking.

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.
W.D.Clinger 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 01:12 AM.
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.