IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events 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.
Reply
Old 23rd June 2013, 02:05 AM   #41
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,597
Originally Posted by TheJamesrocket View Post
Fair enough. If there are any specific threads you can recommend (which aren't many pages long), then I guess I would be up for that. Keep in mind, though, the main reason for this questionaire was so that major tom could gather a list of basic questions which he could use as a template, to create a FAQ page for his website. He and I had a discussion in private, where I suggested that such an addition would be conducisive to getting his message across to the public. If any of you guys would like to join in on this, then by all means I think this should be a community effort, anyway.
Given your alliance with M_T I wish you well. Several of us here have attempted to assist Major_Tom and have been rejected with his trademark insulting, offensive and dishonest conduct. Proof of all those claims is published on the web if you need it but by all means see if you can make a productive alliance with him. You may well be the first to succeed. The several thousand words of my attempts are documented on two forums for your commiseration if you also get rejected.
Originally Posted by TheJamesrocket View Post
...Hell, this is where the entire concept of ROOSD was born, via endless discussion amongst all of you...
Actually that is not so. Discussion of the concept was on at least two other forums and the concept with the ROOSD label attached has met more rejection than support here - with the label attached it is still is getting personality based rejections as shown by many recent posts in this thread. However the acceptance of the underlying concept on this forum has been slowly increasing. If you are aligning with M_T you need to know the truth which put simply is:

Both M_T and I identified the concept and published it on other forums. Who was first is of no importance to me and there may have been others unknown to either of us.
more important neither of us was aware of the others work until later - so two independent sources and possibly more not yet identified into this JREF forum. Forget those who have rewritten history to claim they also believed it. Forget the recent attempts to hindsight read the concept into NIST's later writings. And neither M_T nor I saw it as a "big thing' - simply an obvious explanation of what really happened. For example see this post by M_T:
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
Credit for ROOSD? IT is such a simple idea that many people were talking about it independently of each other. Ozeco, for example.

Credits also to [some named others]....
ROOSD was an organic discovery, from many different sources. Maybe that is why the concept appeals to so many people.....
I didn't even come up with the catchy name, that was femr. I was calling it OOSRD. Thanks for moving that "R" 3 spaces to the left, femr....
As for me? I just recorded it all.
So M_T "just recorded it". And he did the recording well IMO.

Then the concept of the mechanism of collapse is one thing. The Label "ROOSD" is a different issue despite Oystein's rejection of my clarification of the separation - concept versus label.

ROOSD was de-facto a great marketing strategy and many like you see it as Major_Toms big win. Not so but who cares? Rather why does it matter? It doesn't. All the proofs available if you need them but they dont amount to anything given your present level of disinterest in anything other than M_T's claims.

The discussions here, as I said earlier, were strongly oriented towards Bazantian abstractions. And strong rejection of both the concept and the label of ROOSD. The objections to the concept have slowly dissipated and recent posts denying that there was ever any problem. Ah - the optimism of hindsight. BUT we now have substantial agreement with the concept - plus continuing personalised counter attacks on the ROOSD label associated with M_T.

Originally Posted by TheJamesrocket View Post
...Speaking frankly, I'm amazed that such a remarkable discovery was conceived in this environment (the JREFs reputation on the subject of 911 is very unwholesome, I assure you).
It wasn't and I am fully aware of the unhealthy social aspects of this sub-forum. I try to work past them but my interest is nearly over. And it wasn't remarkable - merely putting words onto self evident facts of the real collapses. What was possibly remarkable was the stubbornness of people insiisting that the Bazantian abstractions were what really happened. That the main theme of the long thread I referenced. Plus the rewriting of history to now claim "that is what I thought all along" -- but that is standard human nature.
Originally Posted by TheJamesrocket View Post
I can't see why you guys would neglect to co-operate with each other so that the strip-down model gets its due from the engineering community.
The "strip down" sub model has not even been acknowledged let alone agreed here. And this is a discussion forum - not an academic or professional engineering body.
Originally Posted by TheJamesrocket View Post
Accepting that there is some ambivilance towards MT, for whatever reason,...
The reasons self evident if you read more of the forum - you could be too late to pick it up "on the run" as it happens.
Originally Posted by TheJamesrocket View Post
someone on this forum still needs to try their hand at authoring a technical paper enumerating all of the main points!
That is not the role of the forum. It is a personal choice. My objective on internet forums is to contribute explanations for those who don't understand. I'm not into professional publishing. Others will have their own goals ad objectives.

So go for it. I'll stay on the side. If you need anything specific ask. Otherwise it is all "2007-8-9 revisited" for me.

And best wishes on forming an alliance with M_T

Last edited by ozeco41; 23rd June 2013 at 02:30 AM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2013, 02:10 AM   #42
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,073
Originally Posted by TheJamesrocket View Post
Fair enough. If there are any specific threads you can recommend (which aren't many pages long), then I guess I would be up for that. Keep in mind, though, the main reason for this questionaire was so that major tom could gather a list of basic questions which he could use as a template, to create a FAQ page for his website. He and I had a discussion in private, where I suggested that such an addition would be conducisive to getting his message across to the public. If any of you guys would like to join in on this, then by all means I think this should be a community effort, anyway.

Hell, this is where the entire concept of ROOSD was born, via endless discussion amongst all of you. Speaking frankly, I'm amazed that such a remarkable discovery was conceived in this environment (the JREFs reputation on the subject of 911 is very unwholesome, I assure you). I can't see why you guys would neglect to co-operate with each other so that the strip-down model gets its due from the engineering community. Accepting that there is some ambivilance towards MT, for whatever reason, someone on this forum still needs to try their hand at authoring a technical paper enumerating all of the main points!
Oops, you are setting goals...

So you want a model, but Major Tom does not like engineering models. I like the model a floor can only hold so much weight, think it is 29,000,000 pounds; what does the top section weigh? Case closed, we have a model for the collapse. Very simple model, very simple math, we can simplify the whole collapse one floor at a time, based on static, no movement, just use the hand of god method, place the weight on each floor, it fails, next floor please. Simple model, just simple math, no differential equations like Bazant, just add it up. Use excel - my model is done. Next. I put in the numbers. Next... I can give you time to the ground floor based on momentum. Done.

JREF is what? Unwholesome to who; oh, the 911 truth spreaders of lies and idiotic fantasies.

Bazant's model is strip-down, it uses math and engineering. But you don't need Bazant to understand a 1300 foot tall building made of steel can collapse when it is overloaded after the impacts and fires on 911.

All the work Major Tom makes fun of is real stuff, they use engineering, and Major Tom can only mock those works, he can't produce a rebuttal.

We have the full up WTC towers on 911, and those full scale models collapsed due to impacts and fires. And it is all on video, so you can make up your own model like Major Tom did. Call it zipper the exterior; but you could look up the structure of the WTC, learn about the sturcture (gee, even NIST did that) and figure out how it would collaspe after initiation.

Kind of like how much does it take to break a glass; then you want to model a slege hammer with a 12 ounce libby glass; that is 911 after collapse initiation, it failed, then we take the sledge hammer and model the glass breaking due to a sledge hammer.

Like modeling an aircraft after the wings fall off. Do you want to do the math for the fall? Guess where the parts are headed? No wonder people in 911 truth have a hard time with Bazant, he did the math; 911 truth don't do it. They think they can back in CD by blasting engineering studies. They failed.

Gee, now you want a model like Bazant? It has math. If you model what you think Major Tom did, it would look a lot like Bazant's model; since the model is engineering, Major Tom will not be able to figure it out. He makes fun of engineering models.

What is the conclusion of Major Tom's book? Was my model too simple?
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2013, 02:18 AM   #43
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,597
Originally Posted by Reactor drone View Post
Unless I'm missing something, it's not a particularly remarkable discovery,...
Correct
Originally Posted by Reactor drone View Post
...merely a renaming of the "pancaking" mechanism for floor destruction that is well known by the engineering community...
The problem was not with the body of knowledge of the engineering community. It was with internet discussions and where "pancaking" fitted into the global collapse. Sure the generic concept was known to the engineering community but the problems arose in internet forum discussions. So go back to the status of Internet discussions through 2007-8-9-? There were numerous "Truther Canard" issues. One regular one was truther quote mining of the NIST rejection of pancaking as the cause of collapse initiation wrongly attributed as rejection of pancaking in collapse progression.

WHILST at the same time most debunker counter arguments were based on Bazantian abstractions with little credence to the "what really happened" explanations of mechansims.
Originally Posted by Reactor drone View Post
NIST didn't do much in the way of post failure modelling in WTC 1 & 2 but their analysis of recovered steel in NCSTAR 1-3C indicates that they knew what the major floor to column joint failure mechanism was.
sure but NIST was not involved in Internet Forum discussions which is where the confusions were arising. Plus I'm not sure of the timing of all the NIST clarifications in hindsight.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2013, 03:48 AM   #44
JSanderO
Illuminator
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,205
ROOSD is more comprehensive that a renaming of pancaking of floor slabs. The collapse of the floors becomes a flow of broken floor mass and contents... within the cage of the facade. The flowing mass caused the facade to lose its bracing... to bulge outward and have its bolted connections fail and the facade fall away. The downward mass flow also destroyed bracing in the core rendering it unstable and it failed (collapse) from Euler forces again at the weakest location in the multi part multi story columns - the end splices which were only holding the ending aligned and could no resist Euler forces.

Pancakes were conceived like collapsing plates or records dropping on a changer... People associated this with a stack of slabs or records. ROOSD is nothing like that. The initial mass DESTROYS and fractures the integrity of the slab but does not *disappear* the destructive mass responding, of course to gravity.

There are MULTIPLE processes which destroy the tower. ROOSD is the driving floor mass part and it applies to large column free plans where entire floor foot prints can fracture easily.

Observations and understanding of the unique design of the twin towers leads to the ROOSD description. Of note is that all the other theories explaining the collapse, seem to ignore both the observations and the unique nature of those buildings and treat the matter like an abstraction, for example block mechanics.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2013, 05:50 AM   #45
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
Originally Posted by TheJamesrocket View Post
Fair enough. If there are any specific threads you can recommend (which aren't many pages long), then I guess I would be up for that. Keep in mind, though, the main reason for this questionaire was so that major tom could gather a list of basic questions which he could use as a template, to create a FAQ page for his website. He and I had a discussion in private, where I suggested that such an addition would be conducisive to getting his message across to the public. If any of you guys would like to join in on this, then by all means I think this should be a community effort, anyway.

Hell, this is where the entire concept of ROOSD was born, via endless discussion amongst all of you. Speaking frankly, I'm amazed that such a remarkable discovery was conceived in this environment (the JREFs reputation on the subject of 911 is very unwholesome, I assure you). I can't see why you guys would neglect to co-operate with each other so that the strip-down model gets its due from the engineering community. Accepting that there is some ambivilance towards MT, for whatever reason, someone on this forum still needs to try their hand at authoring a technical paper enumerating all of the main points!

ROOSD is only one part of a set of more comprehensive mappings.

The mappings were not created within this environment. They were created within the environment of The 9/11 Forum. Nothing intelligent can be created within this environment. This is nothing more than a subjective soup simmering on low heat.


The reaction within this forum to the information contained within the mappings can be seen within these threads:



May 11, 2010: OOS Collapse Model thread that branched into this thread

and

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 since, no kidding, they were judged to be "unrelated to 9/11 conspiracy theories".


After my threads were removed from the subforum I began one more thread:

Major_Tom Disproves NIST Claims in a Number of Key Areas

I have 3 years of examples which show how many JREF posters handle technical discussions. Not a pretty picture.



One major contributer to the information within the mappings is a poster called Femr2. This thread and the ones above show how he was treated and his work was received within JREF:


Discussion of femr's video data analysis





Earlier I mentioned that the mappings were assembled by taking advantage of the talents of others. Three main sources were Femr2, OneWhiteEye, and Achimspok. Every one of these people were treated very poorly within this forum. Judging from their comments elsewhere, each of these people seem repelled by what they have witnessed take place in the JREF forum.



Earlier this month Dick Cheney called whistleblower Edward Snowden a traitor. He responded: “Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American."

Likewise, having my work treated the way it has been within the JREF environment while also being ignored by those running STJ911, AE911T and 9/11 research is quite a compliment to me as I have no desire to associated with that which either false pole is feeding the public.

They are sources of the overall dysfunctionality of 9/11 discussion and in no way contribute to the solution of it. There may be individual exceptions in each case but only when they actively oppose the highly faulty environment within their own respective groups.
__________________
Website

Last edited by Major_Tom; 23rd June 2013 at 06:13 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2013, 06:53 AM   #46
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,871
Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
A basic tool of the scientific method is defining one's terms. Is there a definition of ROOSD? I haven't found it in MT's "book".
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
Yes. Half way down the page, section 2.1 of the book.
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/...sition=555:555

I read this section and was unable to find a definition for ROOSD. I know that ROOSD is an acronym for Runaway Open Office Space Destruction and that the book contains much written and graphical description of this ROOSD concept. I am looking for a definition of Runaway Open Office Space Destruction.

“A definition is a statement that explains the meaning of a term….
“In classical thought, a definition was taken to be a statement of the essence of a thing.”-wiki

For instance:

Absolute humidity: The ratio of water vapor in a sample of air to the volume of the sample."

http://www.etutorphysics.com/glossary.html

This is a definition universally accepted by scientists.
Can ROOSD be defined in this manner?
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum
BasqueArch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2013, 11:28 AM   #47
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
The third question from the OP:

Originally Posted by TheJamesrocket View Post
What would the reaction from the scientific community be, if they found out that institutions such as NIST had it wrong for all these years?

Once again it is important to stress that ROOSD is only one part of a larger, more comprehensive body of mappings. It does not exist in a vacuum and the mappings should not be broken into separate individual fragments and treated as if the fragments have no relation to each other. The more subtle portion of the mappings have to do with the collapse initiation processes.

ROOSD mappings really are an embarrassment to many people, including ASCE and the publishers of JEM in particular, and people would have to scramble to cover their asses, most probably by ignoring it and through historic revisionism. Certain truther groups would also have to cover their asses, most probably in the same way.





The ROOSD mappings provide an overall context in which other mappings can be studied. For example, one part of the collapse progression mappings are those of the overpressurization ejections witnessed. It doesn't take a genius to see that the overpressurization patterns witnessed cannot be examined or understood outside of the context of ROOSD. Yet that is exactly what many people imagined they were doing.

As of now, no independent study of overpressurization patterns witnessed exists within the context of a ROOSD scenario. One cannot model the towers as a big freaking piston and have a realistic explanation for the overpressurization patterns witnessed. Yet that is the only way in which overpressurization patterns have been discussed within the historic record. People in past discussions have used the "great piston" model to "explain" overpressurization patterns witnessed and they have used the method of handwaving. The handwaving has been so vigorous that were one to attach some feathers to the people doing so they quite possibly could have taken flight.

That is it. That is our common recorded history.


The ROOSD mappings provide the overall context through which other mappings can be approached.....but they also open up a whole new can of worms.


The true embarrassment, however, is in how badly the collapse initiation processes are presented to the public.
__________________
Website

Last edited by Major_Tom; 23rd June 2013 at 11:33 AM.
Major_Tom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2013, 12:14 PM   #48
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,073
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
...
Major_Tom Disproves NIST Claims in a Number of Key Areas

...

Earlier this month Dick Cheney called whistleblower Edward Snowden a traitor. He responded: “Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American."

...
Snowden is your hero? lol, he is a paranoid conspiracy theorist, the news outlets are being kind. He is like 911 truth. Is this in your book too? A goal of your book, to make fun of Dick; PNAC's army of one, shot gun kid. lol - off topic like your work, no relation to 911 CTs, or is there? You can't tie your work to a 911 truth conspiracy theory, and it has no conclusion.

No, Major Tom, you did not disprove NIST in any Key Areas.

Where is the math? You did not discover anything, the structure of the WTC collapsed as expected; ask Robertson. You have made fun of engineering models which do explain the collapse, but you don't understand engineering, math, physics, and think the gravity collapse is an illusion? Did you retract your gravity collapse is an illusion? no

Did you discover the sun this morning? Got an acronym for that event? Better yet, can you summarize your conclusion with respect to 911 truth silly claims of an inside job? What is your book's conclusion?

Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post


...
1) Study of the core box columns in the rubble (under discussion).

2) Study of the first and most visible major rows of lateral ejections ...

3) A detailed study of the "spire"...

4) A detailed study of lateral ejections ...


These are just some of the factors which, when studied in depth, 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.


Please stay tuned as we discuss each of these factors in detail, while, of course, sticking to the subject originally posted in this thread.
Is the gravity collapse an illusion? What is the conclusion of your study? Detailed study at that?

What is the purpose of the collapse study? I think all that is needed is why the collapse started. Why is that not enough? ... What did you discover which Robertson can't explain? Why are engineering models not right? If I model the sun, you would say it does not match what you see. You would be wrong. Why is all the psycho babble in your book?

We stayed tune, what is the conclusion? Gravity collapse illusion, or CD? What did all the work explain about 911 truth, 911 conspiracy theories? Sticking closely the subject of explaining and debunking 911 truth claims, 911 conspiracy theories using logic, and rational thinking, what is the summary? You failed to show anything with the NIST thread, what is different about this?
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2013, 04:11 PM   #49
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post

Over ensuing years it has remained obvious that explainers of 9/11 WTC collapses fall into two main camps. (1) Those who rely on abstract academic models which fail to match WTC9/11 reality at key points. And (2) those who, like me, insist that explanations of 9/11 realities MUST explain what really happened - not some inaccurate abstract model.

There are significant differences between me an Major_Tom on some matters BUT we are both firmly committed to the minority group who insist on real world accuracy for WTC collapse explanations.

With respect to the concept being called ROOSD or whatever name one prefers, yes. But that is where the similarities end.


To me the ROOSD mappings are not an end in themselves and that is why they cannot be separated from other phenomena which are also observable.

ROOSD mappings allow one to recognize the grossest features of the collapse processes of WTC1 and 2, and they give a context through which other observed collapse phenomena can be studied.

But nobody can describe the ROOSD process in a few posts and correctly say, "Now I know what happened." One needs a comprehensive set of mappings and a knowledge of the visual and written history to approach that highly complex issue.

For example, one can neither verify nor refute NIST claims about the initiation processes or approach the highly controversial question of demolition using only the ROOSD mappings.

This is why I emphasize repeatedly that ROOSD mappings only provide a gross context through which to understand what one is observing. ROOSD provides context, but not concrete answers to many of the questions still being asked. More comprehensive mappings are necessary for that and that is why some of the best individual researchers I have encountered assembled them. Your attitude toward their collected work is recorded over a three year period and is available at this link.

........

On the other hand, without ROOSD mappings or descriptions one doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of understanding anything that one is seeing during the collapse processes, including the grossest features. This is the position that so many people still find themselves in even 12 years after the collapses. WIthout ROOSD mappings, strong, stubborn opinions are nothing more than false certainty.

WIth ROOSD mappings alone, strong, stubborn opinions are also nothing more than a state of false certainty.
__________________
Website

Last edited by Major_Tom; 23rd June 2013 at 04:23 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2013, 04:57 PM   #50
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,214
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post

But nobody can describe the ROOSD process in a few posts and correctly say, "Now I know what happened." One needs a comprehensive set of mappings and a knowledge of the visual and written history to approach that highly complex issue.
And this is the problem. If M_T tried to summarise his ideas they would be just as incomplete as any other summaries or simplified descriptions but that's what he always compare his work to. Criticism of M_T is rarely based on his work, it's usually about his claims, e.g-disproving NIST in key areas, most accurate and compete mappings, his dismissal of the usefulness of other studies like NIST and Bazant and the burying of any useful facts in a mire of psychological musings.
Reactor drone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2013, 06:29 PM   #51
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
The process used is very simple. Observe carefully, measure carefully, verify all claims.

Failure to do that in this case results in psychological malady, stubbornness and a pseudo-history.




One thing any of you can verify for yourselves is that Bazant didn't follow that simple process. He is a very poor observer. The NIST did not follow that simple process. Very poor observational skills. Technical leaders of AE911T and STJ911 did not follow it either. Awful observational skills. They all just talked past each other using no common body of observations and measurements.

The final result is a dangerous situation.




My original goal was to get people to follow that simple process. I found through direct experience that getting people to follow that simple process in this case is impossible.

My secondary goal is to show those who come after us, those living in the post 9/11 era, how poorly these groups observed, measured, and verified. The general idea is that when given a bunch of lemons, make some lemonade.



The rest is watching people revise and cling to driftwood fragments of their own history, and recording it.
__________________
Website

Last edited by Major_Tom; 23rd June 2013 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2013, 07:48 AM   #52
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,734
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
The final result is a dangerous situation.
This comment strikes me as odd. How is any of this "dangerous"?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2013, 08:58 AM   #53
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,073
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
This comment strikes me as odd. How is any of this "dangerous"?
Dangerous to the "gravity collapse is an illusion" conclusion.

Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
... results in psychological malady, ...
A psychological study of the WTC collapse; odd.

The math was given a chance, but the step to the real world was ignored, and the book was born. No conclusion, disguised as a conclusion.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...semechnism.jpg
Gravity collapse is an Illusion - photo evidence...

The dust, wallboard dust, and insulation dust hides the observables. The collapse remains a mystery to the visual method, the no math stuff, the "gravity collapse is an illusion" conclusion method which fools few. Where is x-ray vision when you need it Clark?

Last edited by beachnut; 24th June 2013 at 09:49 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2013, 04:58 PM   #54
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,597
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
This comment strikes me as odd. How is any of this "dangerous"?
The danger is mainly in the risk to mental stability if we try to follow the shifting goalposts and funny logic.

The current one being "Unless you can see it and measure it to multiple decimal places it didn't happen".

If only the NY emergency services had known that bit of M_T wisdom. They could have shrouded the Twin Towers in fog - possibly multiple military smoke grenades - and obscured the twin Towers from view.

By MT "logic' if we couldn't observe and measure the collapse it didn't happen.

Come to think of it that could be an emergency response strategy for any future event. Hide it so it cannot be measured and it cannot happen.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2013, 05:03 PM   #55
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,597
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
...A psychological study of the WTC collapse; odd...
It sure is. And that is before we deal with the faulty logic.

However it does lead to a suggestion -- Maybe we should paint Valium on all tall buildings to keep them sedate?



I'm sure that makes as much sense as some of the other things we see 'round here.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2013, 11:32 PM   #56
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,715
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
...
Come to think of it that could be an emergency response strategy for any future event. Hide it so it cannot be measured and it cannot happen. http://conleys.com.au/smilies/thumbup.gif
If only everybody remembered to bring their towel at all times!
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2013, 07:23 AM   #57
Africanus
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/...sition=555:555

I read this section and was unable to find a definition for ROOSD. I know that ROOSD is an acronym for Runaway Open Office Space Destruction and that the book contains much written and graphical description of this ROOSD concept. I am looking for a definition of Runaway Open Office Space Destruction.

“A definition is a statement that explains the meaning of a term….
“In classical thought, a definition was taken to be a statement of the essence of a thing.”-wiki

For instance:

Absolute humidity: The ratio of water vapor in a sample of air to the volume of the sample."

http://www.etutorphysics.com/glossary.html

This is a definition universally accepted by scientists.
Can ROOSD be defined in this manner?
I think the following could be the relevant definition, but it is a little hidden in the text.

Quote:
Current knowledge of WTC perimeter action with discovery that the entire north half of the WTC1 core survived the initial collapse leaves little doubt that complete OOS destruction, essentially stripping the OOS flooring from both the perimeter and the core, was the mechanism by which the collapse propagated down the tower. Runaway OOS Destruction (ROOSD) is the only known descriptive collapse propagation model which matches observations.
Africanus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2013, 10:22 AM   #58
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Africanus View Post
I think the following could be the relevant definition, but it is a little hidden in the text.
Thanks.

Can someone explain to me whether this is supposed to be controversial?

We've known for a long time that a substantial portion of the core remained standing after the initial collapse, so of course the floor slabs were stripped of their connection to the core.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2013, 11:09 AM   #59
JSanderO
Illuminator
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,205
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Thanks.

Can someone explain to me whether this is supposed to be controversial?

We've known for a long time that a substantial portion of the core remained standing after the initial collapse, so of course the floor slabs were stripped of their connection to the core.
I'll take a crack at this. NIST uses the undefined and poorly descriptive term - global collapse which does even suggest that the mechanism was linked to the column free open office DESIGN.

It's like damage, then heat weakening, then global collapse. Move on.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2013, 11:23 AM   #60
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,597
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Thanks.

Can someone explain to me whether this is supposed to be controversial?...
It is a false controversy supported by tortuous illogic.

The simple aspect of observable fact is that the "global collapse" or "collapse progression" stage of the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2 was driven by material falling down the open office space causing the floors to be separated from the columns. That in turn led to the outer perimeter columns being unbraced and they fell away. Also the core was stripped down. This complies with your second paragraph:
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
....a substantial portion of the core remained standing after the initial collapse, so of course the floor slabs were stripped of their connection to the core.
The issue of invented controversy arises because of two points.

The first being that major_Tom has made the statements and some members have decreed that (a) Major_Tom has been declared to be a truther AND (b) anything a "truther" says must be untrue and subject to ridicule. He happens to be right on this one but that is difficult for some to accept in the black and white polarisation of debunkers v truthers

The second is that Major_Tom assigned the name "Runaway Open Office Space Destruction" which accurately describes the process. And, as an aside, is self defining - doesn't need any more definition within the setting of discussion of WTC collapses. But M_T uses the acronym "ROOSD" which has been the target for ridicule.

The pretence that the term is not defined and the innuendo that there is something wrong about the process description does not stand scrutiny.

There are other issues of nuance including those which arise from your statement:
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
We've known for a long time that...
Sure "it has been known....etc"
Bottom line is that M_T is one of those who have done some of the basic research and it has been a long process getting substantial recognition of the facts.

IMO Major_Tom has written a lot of things which are either outright wrong or a based on flawed argument. The process he calls ROOSD is one of those technical matter which he gets right. And one where his detailed research has been better than most.

Hence it is a poor target for those attempting to ridicule M_T. They should pick on the bits where he is wrong - there are a lot more of them. And ridicule of the person never makes good argument.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2013, 05:19 AM   #61
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
Like I mentioned, the process used is very simple. Observe carefully, measure carefully, verify all claims.



Originally Posted by DGM View Post
How is any of this "dangerous"?

Within just the last 12 years there have been many well known examples of what can happen when various people and groups with poor observational skills feel free to use their own observations and measurements.


The Iraq war is just one example. The levee system protecting New Orleans is another example. Fukushima is an example.

The current tubulance in economic systems is just one more example.




You may argue that these events were not dangerous to you personally. Poor sets of observations and measurements and a lack of oversight and fact-checking skill can lead to all sorts of dangerous situations for other people.

In all these cases some people were left quite vulnerable due to highly bias sets of observations and measurements used by others.
__________________
Website

Last edited by Major_Tom; 28th June 2013 at 05:20 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2013, 06:26 AM   #62
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,734
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post

In all these cases some people were left quite vulnerable due to highly bias sets of observations and measurements used by others.
If we use your methods, everyone wouldn't necessarily be safe because nothing would ever get done.

This is shown in the conclusion of your book, you never came to one.

Like it or not, sometimes a judgement call must be made. Sometimes it's wrong.

It's fun to be an idealist but, it is not really practical in the real world.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

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

Last edited by DGM; 28th June 2013 at 06:27 AM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2013, 06:45 AM   #63
JSanderO
Illuminator
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,205
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
If we use your methods, everyone wouldn't necessarily be safe because nothing would ever get done.

This is shown in the conclusion of your book, you never came to one.

Like it or not, sometimes a judgement call must be made. Sometimes it's wrong.

It's fun to be an idealist but, it is not really practical in the real world.
A stupid comment.. expediency killed the cat.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2013, 06:57 AM   #64
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,734
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
A stupid comment.. expediency killed the cat.
Who advocated expedience?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2013, 09:34 AM   #65
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
Like I mentioned, the process used is very simple. Observe carefully, measure carefully, verify all claims.


Within just the last 12 years there have been many well known examples of what can happen when various people and groups with poor observational skills feel free to use their own observations and measurements.


The Iraq war is just one example.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
If we use your methods, everyone wouldn't necessarily be safe because nothing would ever get done.
No comment necessary.







Quote:
Like it or not, sometimes a judgement call must be made. Sometimes it's wrong.

It's fun to be an idealist but, it is not really practical in the real world.

The real world is the one in which people using their own highly subjective observations, measurements, and facts and were drugged by false certainty in their own beliefs.

A decade later there still seems to be no "ballpark" consensus on the death toll. Many people seem free to choose their own numbers.


Which "real world" are you talking about? The one in which intelligent, sincere, good natured people made honest mistakes concerning the lives of others?




In the case of the WTC towers, real world is best represented by the most accurate, complete sets of observations and measurements of building behavior. Real world conditions cannot be understood through faith in authorities who are on record as having poor observational skills themselves.
__________________
Website

Last edited by Major_Tom; 28th June 2013 at 09:35 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2013, 09:45 AM   #66
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,734
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
The real world is the one in which people using their own highly subjective observations, measurements, and facts and were drugged by false certainty in their own beliefs.
Do you live in the real world or are you some place else? These rules apply to you, right?

Quote:
Which "real world" are you talking about? The one in which intelligent, sincere, good natured people made honest mistakes concerning the lives of others?
Sure.

Quote:
In the case of the WTC towers, real world is best represented by the most accurate, complete sets of observations and measurements of building behavior. Real world conditions cannot be understood through faith in authorities who are on record as having poor observational skills themselves.
And in your un-biased opinion this all can be found with belief in you.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2013, 12:47 PM   #67
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
If we use your methods, everyone wouldn't necessarily be safe because nothing would ever get done.
The information in the book revolves around mappings of the collapse processes.


Why did the mappings take so long to assemble?



They didn't.

There was a quiet revolutionary change within The 9/11 Forum around October, 2009 and again in February-March 2010. Page 24 of the "missing jolts" thread can be cited as the beginning of a quiet revolution.

It was the first time within forum records that people stopped talking in terms of simplified cartoons and began to map the actual movements of the buildings in earnest. Few people are aware of this transition, but if one looks at the posts before October 2009 and again before February 2010, it is easy to see that people had no idea what the hell they were talking about before then.

People were taking blocks literally within that forum using the standard pre Oct 2009 cartoon argumentation. An entirely new world emerged later based on extremely accurate and quite detailed mappings.

The book and website are about how people with next to no information came to premature conclusions based on false certainty. (They still do.) The book is about how naive and vulnerable people have been to generic cartoon argumentation and false technical information. Much of this vulnerability can be seen by how people communicated about the collapses through forum records.

If one looks back at those earlier posts it is as if people were living in the stone age compared to what is knowable today. Information since then is on a different level entirely. If people don't understand that, it is very difficult to explain to them.



The actual mappings were delayed because the NIST didn't release sizable portions of the visual record to the public until after a response to FOIA requests in 2009-2010. Using that information a few independent researchers were able to assemble elements of both the ROOSD mappings and the initiation and overpressurization mappings within months. The mappings were assembled quite quickly considering how much work went into them. The work is all recorded within forums.

The delay from 2001 to 2009 is not the fault of independent researchers. It is due to the NIST keeping the assembled visual record private. Delays after 2010 are not the fault of independent researchers. These mappings have been available to the public since then.
__________________
Website

Last edited by Major_Tom; 28th June 2013 at 12:50 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2013, 05:08 PM   #68
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,073
Engineering models are called cartoons by those who can't do the math.

Got a conclusion for the book?

Last edited by beachnut; 28th June 2013 at 05:51 PM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2013, 06:53 PM   #69
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,734
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post

Got a conclusion for the book?
If I remember it was NIST and everyone else is wrong. He never really quite gets to what is right.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2013, 05:40 AM   #70
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
Like I mentioned, the process used is very simple. Observe carefully, measure carefully, verify all claims.


Originally Posted by DGM View Post
And in your un-biased opinion this all can be found with belief in you.
Each individual element of the mappings can be verified. Verification requires individual initiative. Some people are not capable of that or they are just too lazy to do it.

They will believe instead because short of the capacity to verify information they have no choice.

No part of the mappings requires belief. They were written in a form in which each element can be verified by the reader. In this case belief is just a passive substitute for verification.
__________________
Website

Last edited by Major_Tom; 29th June 2013 at 05:49 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2013, 06:23 AM   #71
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,734
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post

No part of the mappings requires belief. They were written in a form in which each element can be verified by the reader. In this case belief is just a passive substitute for verification.
I agree. So, why not leave out your interpretation and just show the mappings? Wouldn't that be the proper way to avoid anyone being swayed by your belief?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2013, 06:34 AM   #72
Major_Tom
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,960
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I agree. So, why not leave out your interpretation and just show the mappings? Wouldn't that be the proper way to avoid anyone being swayed by your belief?

The reaction within this forum to observations and measurements contained within the mappings can be seen within these threads:



May 11, 2010: OOS Collapse Model thread that branched into this thread

and

October 26, 2010: WTC 1 Feature List, WTC 2 Feature List merged



August 13, 2010: Discussion of femr's video data analysis




Many of the posters within those threads were definitely being swayed by something larger than my beliefs. Various approaches to dealing with observation, measurement, and verification are well documented within those threads. Not a pretty picture.


Nothing shows how people perceive the WTC collapses better than their attitude toward observations and measurements.


Earlier I wrote that there was a quiet revolutionary change within The 9/11 Forum around October, 2009 and again in February-March 2010. Page 24 of the "missing jolts" thread can be cited as the beginning of a quiet revolution.

It was the first time within forum records that people stopped talking in terms of simplified cartoons and began to map the actual movements of the buildings in earnest.


The dates on which the linked threads were started and the contents of the OPs show that this verifiable information was presented in this subforum in 2010 and the threads show the way this information was treated.


It is now 2013 and some of you are still stuck on the earliest mappings. Few even noticed the latter mappings. Beachnut still walks the forum clinging to Bazant.
__________________
Website

Last edited by Major_Tom; 29th June 2013 at 06:51 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2013, 06:48 AM   #73
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,734
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
Many of the posters within those threads were definitely being swayed by something larger than my beliefs. Various approaches to dealing with observation, measurement, and verification are well documented within those threads. Not a pretty picture.
Likely true, and the same also goes for yourself. You are not trying to claim your work is 100% without bias?

I don't believe anyone was shown to doubt the mappings themselves, just your interpretation.

I've said it before, I have no problem with your (or femr2) data. In fact, I think the collection is excellent.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

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

Last edited by DGM; 29th June 2013 at 06:54 AM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2013, 07:07 AM   #74
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,734
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
.
It is now 2013 and some of you are still stuck on the earliest mappings. Few even noticed the latter mappings. Beachnut still walks the forum clinging to Bazant.
Miss-use of Bazant (all) is indeed rampant on both sides. Sort of how it goes when a topic ages and is blended with conspiracy theory.

I have no doubt it would be different if it was geared strictly to engineering.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2013, 10:04 AM   #75
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,675
Originally Posted by TheJamesrocket View Post
My question to you, major tom, is how were you able to assemble all the phenomenon of the twin towers collapse into a coherant theory?
He basically rediscovered FEMA's explanation and is marketing it as his own.

I've posted it several times already, but here is, again, FEMA's explanation from May 2002:
2.2.1.5 Progression of Collapse
Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 4x1011 joules of potential energy over the 1,368-foot height of the structure. Of this, approximately 8x109 joules of potential energy were stored in the upper part of the structure, above the impact floors, relative to the lowest point of impact. Once collapse initiated, much of this potential energy was rapidly converted into kinetic energy. As the large mass of the collapsing floors above accelerated and impacted on the floors below, it caused an immediate progressive series of floor failures, punching each in turn onto the floor below, accelerating as the sequence progressed. As the floors collapsed, this left tall freestanding portions of the exterior wall and possibly central core columns. As the unsupported height of these freestanding exterior wall elements increased, they buckled at the bolted column splice connections, and also collapsed. Perimeter walls of the building seem to have peeled off and fallen directly away from the building face, while portions of the core fell in a somewhat random manner. The perimeter walls broke apart at the bolted connections, allowing individual prefabricated units that formed the wall or, in some cases, large assemblies of these units to fall to the street and onto neighboring buildings below.

Review of videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various angles indicates that the transmission tower on top of the structure began to move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident at the exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building. This is consistent with the observations of debris patterns from the 91st floor, previously discussed. This is also supported by preliminary evaluation of the load carrying capacity of these columns, discussed in more detail in Section 2.2.2.2. The core columns were not designed to resist wind loads and, therefore, had less reserve capacity than perimeter columns. As some exterior and core columns were damaged by the aircraft impact, the outrigger trusses at the top of the building shifted additional loads to the remaining core columns, further eroding the available factor of safety. This would have been particularly significant in the upper portion of the damaged building. In this region, the original design load for the core columns was less than at lower floors, and the column sections were relatively light. The increased stresses caused by the aircraft impact could easily have brought several of these columns close to their ultimate capacity, so that relatively little additional effects due to fire would have been required to initiate the collapse. Once movement began, the entire portion of the building above the area of impact fell in a unit, pushing a cushion of air below it. As this cushion of air pushed through the impact area, the fires were fed by new oxygen and pushed outward, creating the illusion of a secondary explosion.

Although the building appeared to collapse within its own footprint, a review of aerial photographs of the site following the collapse, as well as damage to adjacent structures, suggests that debris impacted the Marriott Hotel (WTC 3), the Customs House (WTC 6), the Morgan Stanley building (WTC 5), WTC 7, and the American Express and Winter Garden buildings located across West Street (Figure 2-23). The debris field extended as far as 400-500 feet from the tower base.
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf p.2-27
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2013, 11:12 AM   #76
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,073
Originally Posted by Major_Tom View Post
... It is now 2013 and some of you are still stuck on the earliest mappings. Few even noticed the latter mappings. Beachnut still walks the forum clinging to Bazant.
Mappings? What a load of BS.

The a big fail at mind reading, and analysis.

How is the Major Tom thesis of the Gravity Collapse Being an Illusion going? Is that in the book? Can you debunk CD with your work? Any relation to any 911 conspiracy theories?

Wow, you are proud to call engineering model cartoons and mock education, math, physics, and engineering. Reminds me of your overall efforts to back up your gravity collapse illusion.
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sept11/MajorTom/
If you would try, you might understand models. I love your 99 percent obscured analysis of the WTC collapse, hidden by smoke and dust, did you xray vision to make up the stuff, or is the 1 percent solution good enough for the observation method of blind-men with the elephant method of 911 woo? Yes, the building collapsed, but study of the collapse is needed for what? Did you set goal, and do you have recommendations? A conclusion?

12 years and no CD, no joy on the gravity collapse illusion. What did Robertson say about your book?
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2013, 11:18 AM   #77
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,734
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Mappings? What a load of BS.
Curious.

If you take "mappings" as just raw data, How do you feel about Major_Tom's (and femr2) work? Skip their commentary.

I (have said) it's really pretty good.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2013, 12:46 PM   #78
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,597
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Curious.

If you take "mappings" as just raw data, How do you feel about Major_Tom's (and femr2) work? Skip their commentary.

I (have said) it's really pretty good.
It is very good and I have commended the work many times.

The distinction you make between the accurate data and the commentary is also very important. Too much of this discussion - here now and on previous occasions - confuses the issues of fact with the personality dislikes and the practice of making unsupportable personal claims by innuendo.

FACT #1
It is true fact that the global or progressive stage of the collapses of the Twin towers involved the falling of a large mass of top tower and debris down the tube of the open office space causing floors to be sheared off the columns and consequential loss of perimeter column bracing.

When Major_Tom says that is what happened it is true fact. It does not become untrue because FEMA said it at an earlier date. Nor does it become untrue if beachnut thinks M_T is a truther

I first explained that collapse process on another forum in 2007/8 and my explanations do not become untrue because FEMA said it earlier. Nor are Major_Tom's statements of that process false because both FEMA and I and probably several others said it before him.

It is simply fact. ("True fact" for the lawyers and other pedants like me )

FACT #2
As I understand it Major_Tom initially called the process "open office space runaway destruction" with the acronym OOSRD. Femr2 suggested "ROOSD" and that is what M_T calls it. I like it. I use it. I wish I had thought of it.

Some people hate it and ridicule it because it is associated with MT - and in typical fashion make all sorts of "lie by innuendo" false claims against it. Childish nonsense. They cannot build a reasoned argument on the premise that they don't like the acronym.

FACT #3
Major_Tom bases his reasoning on accurate mappings. I believe that to be true fact. Use of precision measurement is a method preferred by M_T and his colleagues at The911Forum. Their preference for method does not preclude others such as FEMA or me from using other equally valid methods.

UNTRUE FACT #4
Major_Tom claims by innuendo (he may have said it explicitly) that the findings can only be determined by mappings of observations. That is not true fact. The mappings are not needed to explain the process. The process is apparent to gross visual examination of video evidence plus some reasoning. The "mappings" are one valid way of coming to understand the process. But that are not the only one - in fact they are overkill for identifying the process.

Last edited by ozeco41; 29th June 2013 at 12:53 PM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2013, 12:49 PM   #79
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,734
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
....
Happy Birthday.

I'm a bit surprised you let my comment about separating conspiracy go.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

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

Last edited by DGM; 29th June 2013 at 12:53 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2013, 01:02 PM   #80
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,597
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Happy Birthday.
Thanks - Before you ask its 39




..and "holding".

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I'm a bit surprised you let my comment about separating conspiracy go.
I must be getting soft in my old age.
PLUS my posts get too long when I need to be pedantically accurate. So there are at least 6 more aspects to be dealt with at some stage.

Take this one as an example:

Why do you include femr2 with M_T in comments such as this one:
Quote:
....Major_Tom's (and femr2) work? Skip their commentary.
Their work is complementary;
Their commentaries are poles apart.

Last edited by ozeco41; 29th June 2013 at 01:07 PM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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

Bookmarks

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 12:35 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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.