Yes, I read MTs paper concerning the sequence of collapse observable from the outside, and his extrapolation as to what that implies was happening inside...
Yes - had a quick look but didn't find the posts - yet. But my position is unchanged over several years as you know. Major_Tom's technical work is extensive and has not been technically faulted. Whether or not people think he is a truther OR whether or not they are interested in the research is irrelevant to those technical truths.
I stopped shortly after those parts of the paper. His psychology musings leave me cold.
Me too. Actually IMNSHO his pseudo psychology consists of a foundation of truism quotes from persons many of whom would be recognised as authorities. Very little original input from M_T other than his interpretation/application of those truisms based in his own style of shaky logic.
IMO that's not the problem. The problem is what M_T does with those bits of possible truth. He falsely generalises, draws false global conclusions, looks for single exceptions which favour his predetermined conclusions then disregards the weight of evidence. Probably a couple more. BUT those are the very same failings of logic structure that he applies to matters other than the pseudo psychology. Failings of logical reasoning process....independent of the "psychology" he attaches them to.
(BTW - anyone interested in my assessment of the style read his post #1912 which probably proves every aspect I just claimed. I haven't responded because it would take a lot of effort to put the issues in context and focus and be of no benefit to anyone. The rest of you not interested in me taking on M_T. And M_T would simply use it as basis for more evasion or insults. Remember tho' - he is still treating me as #1 enemy by inference even though I'm out mostly on my lonesome commending his true technical claims. Go figure (a) Why he pours most spite on me for agreeing with him; AND (b) Why I still bother. 
)
And over the past 3 or so years I've posted him detailed explanations two or three times on each of this forum and 911Forum. I've probably put more effort into trying to help him that any other member and across two forums. The only outcome - he has awarded me my personal "character assassination thread" targeting me with....you guessed it... insults expressed by innuendo...another ongoing feature of his style.
He simply will not engage in reasoned discussion. Another characteristic of his "style". Remember his thread claiming that NIST made errors in "key areas" where he never would state what the "key areas" were OR what "errors" he was claiming.
And his reasoning style is pure truther. Which is why I get frustrated/irritated when debunkers sink to using the same truther tricks against him.
If his claims - technical OR psychological - warrant rebuttal them why can we not do it by valid argument?
Resorting to truther tricks will never be "valid argument".
So I have repeatedly stated the following and in many ways:
1) I respect his technical research;
2) (Like most members here) I loathe his offensive style, his use of lies by innuendo and his direct goading of members either individually or collectively;
3) And his logic is crap mainly due to "black and whiting" - all or nothing" - false forces binary "yes or no" when the issues are not of that structure.
"What do you want for breakfast?" "Pancakes", every day. Papa of course obliges. I have quite a lot of experience with pancakes therefore, and unless I really #### it up they tend to be a flat, single mass object that when dropped flat, hit the plate or table flat. In fact both kids always wanted two (the younger one is 2 y/o and knows it, so everything has to be in twos), and when one flapjack is dropped onto the other they end up as one lying flat on top of the other.
