JREF/ISF 9-11 Forum
The forum can be found here
This is my JREF/ISF posting history in these same subjects from 2010 to the present:
May 11, 2010: OOS Collapse Model
thread that branched into this thread
and this thread
October 26, 2010: WTC 1 Feature List, WTC 2 Feature List merged
These last 2 threads were merged together and moved out of the 9-11 sub-forum.
And a follow-up thread here:
Major_Tom Disproves NIST Claims in a Number of Key Areas
I have 3 years of examples which show how many JREF/ISF posters handle technical discussions. Many have no history of having an informed, fact-based technical discussion in those threads over a 3 year period.
Another thread in which I was active and which serves as an excellent example of communication at JREF/ISF is Discussion of Femr's Data Analysis
One other thread of interest started by Achimspok:
WTC7 and NIST Freefall Failure
A series of 3 "witch hunt" threads were started after the two feature list threads were removed from the subforum. An attack thread about the feature lists was allowed while the original threads were not.
Major_Tom's Feature Lists
MIHOP -femr2 and Major Tom's WTC1,2,7 Demolition Hypotheses
What does "MIHOP" mean?
A thread was created called WTC1 feature list to examine the most detailed sets of mappings ever produced on WTC1 early movement and behavior. The thread was removed from the subforum after about 30,000 views because it was determined that accurate WTC1 mappings "had nothing to do with conspiracy theories."
A sister thread of the most accurate WTC2 early movement and behavior was also removed from the subforum for the same reason. Both were removed in early June, 2011.
There was an effort to remove the Femr2 data analysis thread from the subforum for the same reason later in June, 2011. See exchange starting on page 49, post #1930.
Since then, misrepresentations of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 early motion were allowed to flourish virtually unchecked, reaching the meme crescendo which dominates the forum to the current time.
Misrepresentations of ASCE publications such as the Journal of Engineering Mechanics are still allowed to flourish while challenges to the common misrepresentations are heavily criticized through the use of repeated talking points (memes), censored, or removed from the subforum altogether.
Meme structures about the WTC collapse papers by Dr Zdenek Bazant, published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, were established early in the OOS model thread and repeated with hypnotic regularity. The early comments made within the first 13 pages of the thread which establish the talking points of the memeplex can be read at these links:
Newtons Bit comments
R Mackey comments
Dave Rogers and Myriad comments
and this is no random list of average JREF/ISF posters.
R Mackey is an engineer working for NASA.
Dave Rogers claims to have a Ph.D. in physics.
Newtons Bit is a structural engineer with a masters degree.
I am not sure about Myriad, but I respect the desire for privacy.
TFK is a mechanical engineer and his comments are available for anyone to see. Beachnut claims to be an engineer with M.S. and his comments on this subject are available also.
Even 4 years later these memes were still being repeated and thoroughly believed in with hypnotic regularity.
Denial of NIST descriptions of WTC1 collapse initiation motion began on page 26 of the OOS collapse model thread, post #1039. The group collectively coalesced around the denial by producing a few short, repeatable memes and circling their wagons, attacking anyone who dared challenge the memeplex of 'conventional wisdom'.
After the removal of the WTC1 and WTC2 initiation mappings, there was nothing within the forum that challenged this 'conventional wisdom' and the same misrepresentations are still repeated to this day.
JREF/ISF posting histories demonstrate that people are largely detached from the visual records of the collapse events and from the written records of the collapses for the last 11 years. People as a whole are detached from the history of the collapses in 2 ways:
1) They are detached from the visual record of events
2) They are detached from written records of events
This allows historic revisionism to flourish unchecked. In other words, anyone can say anything they want and there is no effort or capacity to check the claim for accuracy. Groups of people emerge under the banner of some common, shared beliefs. Since the groups are detached from their own visual records and written histories of the events, they make little or no effort or have little or no ability to fact-check their own claims.
Most of what exists in the posting histories demonstrates this two-fold detachment from the WTC collapse events.
The threads are mostly psychological in nature. I originally intended to have technical discussions, but the same psychological themes kept resurfacing (page after page). Any efforts at some type of discussion which is technical in nature were consistently interrupted by this deep-seated psychological need to support the claims made in the NIST reports by any means necessary
Why this is so is understandable. The NIST reports are the centerpiece of a belief in technical certainty and the valid application of scientific technical reasoning with respect to the WTC collapse events.
I would not have known how vitally important these reports are to various people unless I experienced the discussions personally over a prolonged period of time. My first reaction would be to assume these convictions are some sort of joke. It was only after prolonged exposure that I realized how serious this need actually is.
I find the general JREF/ISF perception of the NIST investigation to be highly illuminating as it is consistent with many of the expectations presented in my book. For example, in 2002 this was a common perception expressed in the congressional hearing on the purpose and goals of the upcoming NIST report...
15:02-15:38 CHAIRMAN: "I'd like to know the central goal of the investigation.
NIST: I think going back to the central point, why these were unique incidences and why collapse occurred. There have been instances where buildings have had major fires that burned to completion without the buildings collapsing, I mean, there are several such incidences on record. The singular nature of the collapse and the effect of fire on that collapse, we really need to understand it in much better detail. So that is, far and away, in our minds, the most critical thing to understand first."
This general agreement that the singular nature of the collapses is, far and away, in the minds of the participants, the most critical thing to understand first is repeated multiple times throughout the hearing.
16:43-16:59 NIST: "Now there are many other elements that are critical and that has to do with the behavior of connections under fire, the behavior of open truss structures under fire are central to understanding in detail the exact sequence of the events that led up to the collapse."
Comments like this by the Director of the NIST in 2002 have somehow been transformed into a group perception at JREF/ISF that seems to come from a different world, in which something as fundamental as the collapse mechanisms of the towers are not considered "relevant" or "important".
I think such a transition is interesting since it is just the type of change in perception that my book predicts will occur with the passage of time.
There is no doubt that the WTC1 and 2 feature list threads express the exact same viewpoints given in 2013.
The words "key", "significant", "important" have been used from the first page of the feature list thread, for 3 years, in virtually identical ways. The same terms are used in the "NIST blew stage 1 analysis" thread and the Femr2 video data analysis thread.
There certainly is a core set of identifiable beliefs held by the majority of regular JREF/ISF posters. The evidence is overwhelming.
A core, recurring belief among many of the JREF/ISF regulars is they see the fact of whether the initiation mechanism was core-led or perimeter-led as a pretty useless detail. This belief is expressed on page 1 of the WTC1 feature list thread and in basically every page after that.
The JREF/ISF climate can practically be defined by a commonly shared attitude toward the NIST reports. There is an overwhelming belief shared among many regular posters that the NIST couldn't possibly make any mistake that can be considered to be "key" or "significant" or "important".
This belief system is at the core of most everything I see within that forum.
Deviations between the NIST key observables and the actual visual record are first introduced in the OOS model thread.
It is kind of funny to see the time interval between when information is first introduced, how various people react to it, and when it first becomes perceived
. And once perceived, it is quickly forgotten and the same memes resurface.
Created on 05/01/2009 08:22 PM by admin
Updated on 11/10/2016 01:20 PM by admin