econ41
Senior Member
Hi @qed I'm intrigued that you "disagree" with my post at #31 given that I made 10 assertions advising @Abdullah of some of the history of this topic. All 10 are true with the partial exception of #2.
I was very careful in #7 to refer to 'put the "ROOSD" explanation into mainstream 9/11 debate' which Major Tom did early in 2009. Yes I put the explanation without the acronym on-line in 2007 but that was on the R Dawkins Forum which was not a mainstream 9/11 debate.
So why "Disagree" with the other nine? When seven of them are assertions of fact and only two of them include value judgments which I considered appropriate in a post written as advice for member @Abdullah.
As for #2 Major_Tom's own website is still offline and that status appears to be permanent. @Abdullah has located the data on the "Wayback Machine". BUT which of the other 9 do you disagree with?(1)Yes. Major_Tom's site has been "off-line" for some time.
(2) A comprehensive collection of data no longer available
(3) And I have had no contact with him for at least 2-3 years.
(4) He was an outstanding researcher of the video record who, together with three colleagues, approached WTC Towers collapse research from a "truther side" starting perspective.
(5) Then honestly rebutted a number of truth-movement memes.
(6) The example I recall from Major_Tom - the photo-shopped graphic used by (I think) S Jones showing alleged molten steel in the debris pile. It was a collage of four separate photos and Major_Tom identified where the added bits of imagery were sourced in the debris pile relative to the central feature of heated steel.
(7) He was the first person to put the "ROOSD" explanation into mainstream 9/11 debate
(8) and was met by denials, insults and personal attacks on another forum
(9) which was renowned for hostility to truthers. (It had in fact seen a "split" of members over those issues. )
(10) His colleague "femr2" was the person who specialised in accurate interpretation of video measurements including the related issues of "sub-pixel" accuracy.
I was very careful in #7 to refer to 'put the "ROOSD" explanation into mainstream 9/11 debate' which Major Tom did early in 2009. Yes I put the explanation without the acronym on-line in 2007 but that was on the R Dawkins Forum which was not a mainstream 9/11 debate.
So why "Disagree" with the other nine? When seven of them are assertions of fact and only two of them include value judgments which I considered appropriate in a post written as advice for member @Abdullah.