Major_Tom Disproves NIST Claims in a Number of Key Areas

Major_Tom

Graduate Poster
M
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
1,960
The information appears in the form of a book.

0.1 Introduction

1.0 Science vs subjective viewpoints

2.0 World Trade Center collapses misrepresented
....2.1 Progressive Floor Collapse in the WTC Towers
....2.2 Purpose of the NIST Reports
....2.3 NIST WTC1 misrepresentation
....2.4 NIST WTC7 misrepresentation
....2.5 NIST WTC2 misrepresentation
....2.6 Bazant misrepresentation of collapse progression
....2.7 Block Mechanics
....2.8 AE911T misrepresentations

3.0 Toward an Accurate History of the Collapses

4.0 Reassessing the Demo Question

5.0 Collapses misrepresented as a narrowed false choice

Conclusions


I wrote it in another forum, hence the linked form.

Bulk of the NIST information appears part 2.


Looking for technical feedback or the usual log of psychological displays that your fine forum offers.

Either way, it is a pleasure to get JREF comments in quotable forms.
 
Last edited:
Those link might as well be links to pictures of garbage dumps.
 
Last edited:
Just a heads up for you Major Tom
While skimming through I found the Richard Feynman video is "private".
 
At first glance, the entire thing appears to be a lengthy confirmation of my conjecture from five years ago:

Myriad said:
It makes me suspect that [Truthers'] main cause for displeasure with skeptics is not that skeptics reach conclusions opposing the truthers', but that they spoil the game by coming to any definitive conclusion at all.
Click to expand...


For instance, amid all the seemingly endless objections to the supposed false choice fallacy between controlled demolition and no controlled demolition, it appears the most basic and straightforward way of addressing a false choice fallacy, pointing out at least one available choice that the false choice omits, is not attempted.

Let's have a do-over from 2005, but with better arguments this time! But whatever we do...

 
Myriad said:
At first glance, the entire thing appears to be a lengthy confirmation of my conjecture from five years ago:...
Click to expand...
I have also made a similar observation.

Your version was:
Myriad said:
....Similarly, most troothers are consistently reluctant to specify their own theories of what actually did happen, claim to remain open to all possibilities, and claim that bringing about further investigation is their chief aim. It makes me suspect that their main cause for displeasure with skeptics is not that skeptics reach conclusions opposing the truthers', but that they spoil the game by coming to any definitive conclusion at all...
Click to expand...
...I have explained it in terms of "convergent thinking" versus "divergent thinking".

Where the more competent debunkers are capable of analysing a complex event consisting of many separate elements, deciding the relationships between those elements and their significance and converging to a conclusion. "Divergent thinkers" cannot do that so they focus on a single element and cannot put it into any valid context with other elements.

Put more simply truthers in general seem to lack the thinking skills which are needed to form valid conclusions.

In a recent post I even went the step further and postulated that those who cannot think clearly are pre-disposed to become truthers.

Both claims would be suitable for further exploration. But I doubt that this sub-forum is the place to do that exploring. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
The information appears in the form of a book.


Does it include crayons or do we have to bring our own........
 
Major_Tom said:
The information appears in the form of a book.

Looking for technical feedback or the usual log of psychological displays that your fine forum offers.

Either way, it is a pleasure to get JREF comments in quotable forms.
Click to expand...

well, I dipped into it. It contains a number of personal attacks, broad generalizations, and logical fallacies.

I stopped reading when I got this:

"More than a decade after the collapses, the wikipedia entry on the collapses contains verifiably incorrect information which is commonly accepted as fact. The wikipedia entry is one of many demonstrations of my thesis, that there is no accurate record of either collapse progression or collapse initiation of any of the 3 buildings available in any government, academic or professional literature."

Argument by wikipedia being wrong? Jesus, dude.
 
I could be wrong here but I seem to recall reading Major_Tom was a poe, anyone know the answer to that?
 
Last edited:
What does Major_Tom prove?

In all my years, I've never been asked for a disproof. Certainly not in book form.
 
I haven't read all the way through yet but so far, this is my favorite part



(I love these guys).

Major_Tom, was this meant as an intermission? This is a bit "out there" for a serious engineering paper.
 
Major Tom proves he failed to read NIST and understand. A bunch of hogwash. If I was wrong the "book" would be in a real engineering journal - it is in a 911 truth forum, rubber stamped by 911 truthers.

Major Tom, in the conclusion, there is suppose to a conclusion, not a rant against NIST. Does the fantasy of CD cloud your engineering skills?

How many journals turned down your work?

The conclusion...
In reality there is no scientific approach and, therefore, no technical history of the collapses at all. This is a verifiable statement.
Click to expand...
Ironically Major Tom's conclusion is self-critiquing, summing up his work.
The NIST, forums like JREF, and groups like STJ911 and AE911 have all contributed to the same process of presenting one polarized extreme of a false dichotomy to the general populace.
Click to expand...
Is this a scientific approach, or CD inspired opinions?
 
Last edited:
I think a book should be run through a grammar + syntax checker of some kind.
 
Major_Tom said:
The information appears in the form of a book.

0.1 Introduction

1.0 Science vs subjective viewpoints

2.0 World Trade Center collapses misrepresented
....2.1 Progressive Floor Collapse in the WTC Towers
....2.2 Purpose of the NIST Reports
....2.3 NIST WTC1 misrepresentation
....2.4 NIST WTC7 misrepresentation
....2.5 NIST WTC2 misrepresentation
....2.6 Bazant misrepresentation of collapse progression
....2.7 Block Mechanics
....2.8 AE911T misrepresentations

3.0 Toward an Accurate History of the Collapses

4.0 Reassessing the Demo Question

5.0 Collapses misrepresented as a narrowed false choice

Conclusions


I wrote it in another forum, hence the linked form.

Bulk of the NIST information appears part 2.


Looking for technical feedback or the usual log of psychological displays that your fine forum offers.

Either way, it is a pleasure to get JREF comments in quotable forms.
Click to expand...

The plot is non existent, there's no character development and the writing style is wooden. You will not need sleeping pills when you have this book.
 
I forgot to add my quote for the cover blurbs.

"I especially like the throbbing .gif files"
- carlitos, 2012
 
" I like how there no actual conclusions about the causes of the collapses in the conclusions section."

-Reactor drone 2012
 
Major_Tom said:
...
Either way, it is a pleasure to get JREF comments in quotable forms.
Click to expand...
I bet you are.
Major_Tom, on JREF; Can be used as a research tool for studying just about every superficial, half-ass response to most any 9-11 question.

Not for the sqeamish, clear signs of pathological hatred towards all who question or doubt the official events of 9-11-01.
Click to expand...

The "comments in quotable form", will those be used in what you call the "best quality WTC forum on the internet" in another scientific opus, a thread of super stuff? You found the right place to host your "scientific breakthrough", the investigation techniques used are the best quality. Amazing stuff, very scientific. I understand why you call the911forum.freeforums.org the best quality WTC forum on the Internet.

How does this "book" support your claims on 911?
Major_Tom said:
... 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. ...
Click to expand...
Will the "book" give you the clues to track down the Satan like people who did 911? Are you using the OJ method of finding the bad guys?
Major_Tom said:
... After we exhaust the "dust ejection" hypothesis being proposed to explain how the first 2 powerful horizontal ejections are separated by 3 or 4 floors, I'll offer an alternative solution based on detonations right along the welds of all 8 core columns in column row 500
Click to expand...
Specifically how does the "book" support or refute your claim of detonations?

I see your lack of understand of engineering, specifically models is still an issue in your "book". Is that part of your "science approach" method?

How does the "book" support or refute your CD claims, and or the big picture, fire did it? Fire or CD? When will you name the Satan like evil people who did 911?
 
Major_Tom said:
....2.7 Block Mechanics
Click to expand...

Major Tom... said:
Review of the Chandler 3rd law argument:

1) the average resistive force provided by the lower section is indeed less than the weight of the upper section
2) this is expected
Click to expand...


Where does Chandler say that the first observable is "expected"? Right off the bat you have either misunderstood or misrepresented his argument.

As I've also pointed out before (and I'm assuming, now that you've posted this in complete on JREF, you are open and will respond to questions from non-technical readers) the "block" model comes from Bazant, as you yourself point out. Every paper that describes the block model is a critique of Bazant, aka official explanation. So why do you keep ascribing this to the truth researchers? They are critiquing the official block model. They have to use the model to explain why it doesn't work.
 
Major Tom, you are certainly floating in a most a peculiar way.
 
Major Tom (whoever that is) has not disproved NIST... Major Tom is just some guy that spews crap on a skeptic's forum.
 
Is this the culmination of his awesome collapse model he was making in MSPaint from awhile back with femr2?
 
Time for me to post some things for the record.

There have been two sides to my relationship to Major_Tom:
1) His detailed technical research work on such thing as as where the outer perimeter of the Twins separated into various sized "bits" and where the bits landed is as good as I have seen. I have commended these technical aspects of his work here on JREF and copped the usual abuse you would expect for siding with a "truther". That is the positive side - his technical detail work is good;
2) The negative side is that he seems to be unable to put any of the details in a logical context. And he seems unable to desist from snide comments and insults directed at anyone who holds views different to his. And I have been as generous as I can in attempting to explain to him his major failings in both logic and style. About three exchanges here on JREF and a couple on his home forum - the "911Forum". In each case he refused to go anywhere in discussion where his twisted logic and world view is challenged.

16.5 sumarises it quite well with this statement:
16.5 said:
well, I dipped into it. It contains a number of personal attacks, broad generalizations, and logical fallacies...
Click to expand...
He simply refuses to even look at his logical failings - resorting to misrepresentation as his first evasion tactic then personal attack if still pressed.
16.5 said:
Hee hee!

"the finest collection of logical fallacies ever assembled!" - -16.5
Click to expand...
Yes. And his overriding fallacy is a form of false generalisation. It pervades/underpins all his excursions into false conclusions.
dafydd said:
Major Tom is bored again.
Click to expand...
Probably. However what members here may not know is that Oystein and I have taken him on on his "home turf" of the 911Forum. His standard response when presented with reasoned arguments which he cannot comprehend or address is to resort to dishonesty. misrepresentation and personal attack. And he comes here fresh from such a dishonest attack against me on the 911forum. It is mostly in a thread titled "Smart Idiots" in the forum section called "History Related to 9/11". The thread title reflecting the disdain M_T has for anyone who dares to disagree with his twisted world view.

Faced with the choice of call him on his lies and personal attacks OR ignore the nonsense I (so far) have chosen "ignore". It is beneath contempt and I prefer not to grace it with a response.

One of my recent posts contained these two comments which I think are relevant:
ozeco41 said:
....Put more simply truthers in general seem to lack the thinking skills which are needed to form valid conclusions.

In a recent post I even went the step further and postulated that those who cannot think clearly are pre-disposed to become truthers.
Click to expand...

And, finally, a rare departure from my ROE's to respond to ergo:
ergo said:
Where does Chandler say that the first observable is "expected"? Right off the bat you have either misunderstood or misrepresented his argument....
Click to expand...
Partially correct ergo. The first part of Chandlers "explanation" does in essence show and relies on the 2/3G / 1/3G split and that the 1/3G is expected. Whether he uses that word I cannot be bothered to check. His meaning is clear. And up to that point Chandler is correct. His next step is where he goes wrong.

The rest of your post is twisted bullcrap and I won't bother commenting.
 
Last edited:
Major_Tom said:
The information appears in the form of a book.

0.1 Introduction
...
Click to expand...

The Introduction / Preface starts off with
Major_Tom said:
One of the two central arguments of this book is that there is no fact-based technical account of the World Trade Center collapses.
Click to expand...

I then read the entire Introduction / Preface in search of the second of the two central arguments of this book, and couldn't quite find it. Are my rerading skills insufficient for this book? :confused:

Also, I notice that this introduction introduces us to parts 1, 2, 3 and 5, but not to part 4 ("Reassessing the Question of Demolition"). Ommission? Afterthought? I must admit I was more interested in that part than in any of the 5 others...


As for the intended readership, M_T states:
Major_Tom said:
First and foremost, I focus this work toward those who realize that discussions that do not center on the need for accuracy are a waste of time.
Click to expand...
I see a few problems with that.
  1. The necessary level of detail and accuracy is usually a function of the objectives at hand. First you have a discussion (a topic, a starting point, a hypothesis), and then, from that, you work out the details and level of accuracy you need.
  2. No matter how accurate and detailed Major_Tom's work already is, he cannot possibly claim to have discovered ALL knowable details to FULL knowable accuracy. Even he had to stop SOMEWHERE. So the next M_T could write a book just like his and "accuse" the original Major_Tom of not having layed out all details in full accuracy - in other words, if creating an "accurate technical history" is Major_Tom's objective, he will of necessity fail. Major_Tom should then reply: "Well, resources are limited, and withouth first providing a motivation derived from obhectives, why dig deeper?"
  3. I haven't read the book and all the accurate details yet - haven't even started - but I remember from previous debates with M_T that he has artificially limited his focus on visual observations, apparently to the exclusion of many other types of knowable facts. Is that still so, and if yes - why?
 
MarkLindeman said:
Not to speak for Oystein, but I was struck by presumably the same thing that struck him. It isn't that a link is broken; it's that his introduction discusses Parts 1, 2, 3, and 5, but not Part 4.
Click to expand...

Right, that's what I meant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom