OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[beachnut]

The row of ejections must be the result of a large falling floor slab, no?

Since I have rarely received answers to any of the questions posed over the last 20 pages, shall I assume yes if I receive no answer?

...

This is why you are full of delusions. You make up your own answers based on ignorance and paranoid delusions of CD. 8 years of failure. You make up delusional rules, and come up with delusional conclusions.
No matter how much you try, you can't back in CD.

 

[femr2]

This is why you are full of delusions. You make up your own answers

No. The questions asked have nothing to do with *CD*. You are seemingly incapable of answering simple questions.

MTs opinion is that it must be a descending floor slab, and he is requesting alternate opinion on the referenced visual behaviour.

What is your opinion ?

If you do not have one, or cannot suggest an alternative interpretation of the visual material, then why should MTs personal opinion change ?

If you do not agree with MTs interpretation, and are suggesting that describing the visual behaviour as a descending floor slab is somehow suggesting *CD*, please explain WHY.

WHY do YOU think that a descending floor slab is a suggestion of CD ?

Come on Beachnut, get busy mate

 

[beachnut]

No. The questions asked have nothing to do with *CD*. You are seemingly incapable of answering simple questions.

MTs opinion is that it must be a descending floor slab, and he is requesting alternate opinion on the referenced visual behaviour.

What is your opinion ?

If you do not have one, or cannot suggest an alternative interpretation of the visual material, then why should MTs personal opinion change ?

If you do not agree with MTs interpretation, and are suggesting that describing the visual behaviour as a descending floor slab is somehow suggesting *CD*, please explain WHY.

WHY do YOU think that a descending floor slab is a suggestion of CD ?

Come on Beachnut, get busy mate

You believe the WTC complex was destroyed by unknown people with CD. You failed. I know 19 terrorists are directly responsible for 911, you apologize for terrorist, fail, and produce nothing to support your delusional CD claims. You call nonsense papers by Jones and other morons on 911, technical papers. You are posting at a skeptic forum and have no clue your CD is nonsensical claptrap.

Come on femr2, you have a idiotic CD delusions; it matters not how busy you get mate, you failed before you reached the starting line.

When I went to your web site and saw the moronic papers you think are technical papers, I understand why you have moronic delusions and try to fake a knowledge of science, video, physics, and engineering to support your failed claim of CD.

The WTC tower failed due to impact and fires; you failed when you try to back in CD based on your opinions instead of engineering.

Are you now against Major Tom's CD claims? Have you dropped your CD claims? Have you decided Tony's CD claims are insane?

Major Tom's paper is another failed attempt to back in CD; if you don't comprehend that, it is indicative of your failure to understand 911.

911 truth is incapable of making rational conclusions. The paper failed, the conclusion proves it. Nothing you can do will help this paper. It is a redo.

I am an engineer, the paper is nonsense. redo! Ask another engineer, you will get the same.

 

[femr2]

Beach nut,

Yet again you fail to answer the simplest of questions, and instead wander off into your OCD delusions, fantasies, inferences and moronic ramblings.

Not surprised at all though.

Keep up the fantastic work buddy. Am sure it's all worth your time and will achieve it's intended result instantly. Oh, pver 13 thousand posts with the same content. Never mind. lol.

 

[beachnut]

Beach nut,

Yet again you fail to answer the simplest of questions, and instead wander off into your OCD delusions, fantasies, inferences and moronic ramblings.

Not surprised at all though.

Keep up the fantastic work buddy. Am sure it's all worth your time and will achieve it's intended result instantly. Oh, pver 13 thousand posts with the same content. Never mind. lol.

Your CD delusion is offensive; this is why you are not able to bring your lies of CD or Major Tom's paper to a national media presentation. Offensive lies made up due to ignorance. Major Tom's paper is junk, your delusion of CD is junk. Prove otherwise buddy. Why can't you answer your own questions? Why can't you figure out 911 given the answers and evidence? Prove your CD now, before you enter the 9th failed year.

 

[femr2]

Major Tom's paper to a national media presentation.

Major_Tom's study of a gravity driven destruction method. Make yourself look a bit silly much Beachnut ?

Offensive lies made up due to ignorance.

You are clearly delusional. What lies ? (Make sure you quote me, don't just make it up)

Why can't you answer your own questions?

MT's question. What is that thing *reading for comprehension* ?

Why can't you figure out 911 given the answers and evidence?

Oh, answers. I like answers. You going to provide some direct answers to MTs questions above ?

 

[beachnut]

Major_Tom's study of a gravity driven destruction method. Make yourself look a bit silly much Beachnut ?


You are clearly delusional. What lies ? (Make sure you quote me, don't just make it up)


MT's question. What is that thing *reading for comprehension* ?


Oh, answers. I like answers. You going to provide some direct answers to MTs questions above ?

No need to answer questions based on nonsense. You can't provide evidence of your CD; that is failure; Tom's paper is a weak attempt to back in CD; failure. Failure; what 911 truth does with no effort, no evidence, no clue.

Not much proof of CD? Tom's paper, a failed attempt at backing in CD.

Have you and Tom dropped the CD delusion? Very simple question; you can't answer it, you will ask nonsensical questions to cover-up your failure to back in CD.

The paper is nonsense; prove otherwise by publishing it in a real journal. Stop asking questions and publish this paper of woo! Take some action! Stand up and do something. Prove you CD conclusion and you win! LOL

Have you dropped CD?

 

[femr2]

No need to answer questions based on nonsense.

Questions based on interpretation of provided video. Simply a dodge Beachnut. Not capable of providing any answers. Shame.

Stop asking questions and publish this paper of woo!

Not a paper, a study, and not mine. A study to *prove* gravity driven primary mechanism of destruction, and you call it woo ? Are you alright mate ? The conclusion states the study does not prove *CD*, and also states is does not prove *NO CD* either. To make it clear that it's scope is that mechanism it focusses upon...post initiation stripping of the floors and perimeter by gravity. But it seems you either can't handle that, or disagree. Wow.

 

[Major_Tom]

That first gif alone is enough to show that nobody seems to have the slightest clue what happened during WTC1 collapse initiation, including the NIST.

But you are not alone. This image is from a NOVA presentation showing how they understand the collapse initiation mechanism given by the NIST:

This image can still be viewed within the presentation on why the towers collapsed on NOVA's website.
>>>>>>>>>>>>

No comment is needed to explain how wrong this is.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

But look at the progressive collapse in WTC7. How did all four widely seperated corners drop at the same time ?

compared to the height of the building they are close together.......if failure is many floors below the top then it takes only a little lateral transfer of the forces per floor to pull the four top corners down.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

That first gif alone is enough to show that nobody seems to have the slightest clue what happened during WTC1 collapse initiation, including the NIST.

But you are not alone. This image is from a NOVA presentation showing how they understand the collapse initiation mechanism given by the NIST:

[qimg]http://the911forum.freeforums.org/download/file.php?id=1[/qimg]

This image can still be viewed within the presentation on why the towers collapsed on NOVA's website.
>>>>>>>>>>>>

No comment is needed to explain how wrong this is.

so a TV program misunderstood or over simplified a highly technical report.......you are surprised?

 

[Seymour Butz]

That first gif alone is enough to show that nobody seems to have the slightest clue what happened during WTC1 collapse initiation, including the NIST.

So then the NOVA, like the BBC, screwed up their script and aired the wrong animation, thereby proving that 9/11 was an inside job?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Questions based on interpretation of provided video. Simply a dodge Beachnut. Not capable of providing any answers. Shame.


Not a paper, a study, and not mine. A study to *prove* gravity driven primary mechanism of destruction, and you call it woo ? Are you alright mate ? The conclusion states the study does not prove *CD*, and also states is does not prove *NO CD* either. To make it clear that it's scope is that mechanism it focusses upon...post initiation stripping of the floors and perimeter by gravity. But it seems you either can't handle that, or disagree. Wow.

As I have repeatedly pointed out.....so what? Both Bazant and Major Tom think that once collapse is initiated it would destroy the towers as seen on 911....the ONLY point of interest is what initiated the collapse.........I say planes as witnessed by thousands, you say????????

 

[femr2]

the ONLY point of interest is what initiated the collapse

Not the only point of interest, but initiation is the primary focus, yes.

I say planes as witnessed by thousands, you say????????

I say that the conclusions within the hefty NIST tomes are flawed, and that the initiation process has not been described correctly.

Recent tracing has indicated that global building feature movement began around the time of the camera shake in the Sauret footage, around 10s in advance of *release* of the *upper block*. Further tracing is required to confirm the correlation.

 

[carlitos]

I say that the conclusions within the hefty NIST tomes are flawed, and that the initiation process has not been described correctly.

I have asked before, and I'll try again. So what?

Why are you devoting hours of analysis to this?

 

[pgimeno]

I say planes as witnessed by thousands, you say????????

Speaking of which...

Yes, do let's stay on topic. Would Major_Tom and / or femr2 please enlighten us as to their hypothesis that better explains the events of 9/11/01?

I was very curious about the answer. That was page 10. More than half a thread ago, i.e. more than 800 messages ago, and still no reply.

 

[Major_Tom]

Seymour, it proves that neither you nor the NIST have any freaking idea whether the south perimeter pull-in or collective core failure initiated collapse.

A reminder: According to the NIST, sagging of the floors in the OOS south region led to the visible inward bowing (IB). IB progressed until the south wall failed.

To save tax payer dollars, the exact same cause of collapse is given for WTC2.

Pgimeno, they never proved the towers were "doomed" in general. They claim to show that excessive heat led to extreme sagging of the flooring in the OOS south region. This pulled in the south wall (IB) until it gave.

This is the long-awaited NIST "proof". I was waiting for one of you to mention the IB and floor sagging as the NIST's best "proof" that the towers were "doomed".

SO, the NIST claimed to prove a specific mechanism (floor sagging to IB to perimeter failure) led to the collapse of each tower. I am showing that the specific mechanism makes no sense for WTC1 and you can verify that by careful observation and measurement of the collapse initiation process.

Basically, IB to the point of south perimeter failure could not have been the cause of WTC1 collapse initiation. The NIST is wrong.

 

[Kent1]

Could you sum up why you believe they are wrong?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Seymour, it proves that neither you nor the NIST have any freaking idea whether the south perimeter pull-in or collective core failure initiated collapse.

A reminder: According to the NIST, sagging of the floors in the OOS south region led to the visible inward bowing (IB). IB progressed until the south wall failed.

To save tax payer dollars, the exact same cause of collapse is given for WTC2.

Pgimeno, they never proved the towers were "doomed" in general. They claim to show that excessive heat led to extreme sagging of the flooring in the OOS south region. This pulled in the south wall (IB) until it gave.

This is the long-awaited NIST "proof". I was waiting for one of you to mention the IB and floor sagging as the NIST's best "proof" that the towers were "doomed".

SO, the NIST claimed to prove a specific mechanism (floor sagging to IB to perimeter failure) led to the collapse of each tower. I am showing that the specific mechanism makes no sense for WTC1 and you can verify that by careful observation and measurement of the collapse initiation process.

Basically, IB to the point of south perimeter failure could not have been the cause of WTC1 collapse initiation. The NIST is wrong.

Wow, to prove NIST "wrong" you have to conduct tests of your own. Which won't be in our lifetimes. Good luck proving NIST wrong cause you're not going to succeed!!

 

[pgimeno]

Basically, IB to the point of south perimeter failure could not have been the cause of WTC1 collapse initiation. The NIST is wrong.

What about WTC2?

Could it be the case that NIST is right about WTC2 and wrong about WTC1?

If so, would that prove that WTC2 collapse was due to fire and WTC1 collapse was a controlled demolition?