OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[alienentity]

What we have found is that to understand the earliest movement of WTC1 you have to measure it.

The NIST obviously has no clue how WTC1 actually moved.

Some of the posters want to talk about WTC2 instead without even making the smallest drop measurements of WTC1. While remaining willfully ignorant of the true sequence of events during the WTC1 collapse initiation, let's change the subject.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

.

Why remain willfully ignorant rather than studying the data?

MT, you go far beyond simply offering an alternative collapse initiation hypothesis, which itself is a perfectly fine idea. Instead you seek to defame NIST, to treat the whole report with such contempt, it is disturbing.
Disturbing mainly because you haven't produced a coherent, engineering-based model to back up your hypothesis, nor have you bothered to get it published in a major engineering journal.

Why don't you do that, then strut around once you've achieved something?

Back to WTC 2, by assiduously avoiding it, you 'remain willfully ignorant rather than studying the data' - ie your truther inquisition is hypocritical and lopsided.

If you study both buildings, you will learn much more. But I suspect you are all trying to pin the tail on the WTC 1 donkey and declare 'inside job' 'explosive demolition' 'too fast for natural collapse' or whatever other claptrap it is that 9/11 Truth is fixated on, instead of actually finding out what happened.

We'll see. The proof will be if you can get published and if you turn your attention to WTC 2 or keep avoiding it.

And I suggest dropping the defamation of NIST. It's a transparent political maneuver to try to dismiss the entire NIST investigations and substitute the 'Truther' versions in their place. Are you more interested in truth or scoring superficial political points for your truther friends? It can't be both.

 

[femr2]

MT, you go far beyond simply offering an alternative collapse initiation hypothesis, which itself is a perfectly fine idea.

There could be many. A serious point, however, is that the NIST initiation sequence description (scant that it is) is wrong. Agreed ?

Instead you seek to defame NIST

The NIST report conclusions are scant, very poorly described, and wrong. There's no *defaming* going on, simply clarification. Critical, sure, but that's kinda in the rubrik yeah ?

to treat the whole report with such contempt, it is disturbing.

Easily spooked, or overtly dramatic ?

Disturbing mainly because you haven't produced a coherent, engineering-based model to back up your hypothesis

What hypothesis ?

The trace data speaks for itself, revealing early movements which directly contradict the conclusions suggested by NIST. The trace data can be replicated by anyone with an inkling to do the leg-work, and careful use of available tools. It's data extracted directly from video footage of the actual event. On that basis, your call for a model at this point is, frankly, a bit irrelevant. Models have to be proven, data extracted directly from visual evidence is pretty much indesputable and definitive. You could argue about the extraction techniques, and if so I'd suggest jumping over to the911forum. We've honed, tested and refined the techniques over a lengthy period of time.

nor have you bothered to get it published in a major engineering journal.

One purpose of this thread was to get feedback on the preliminary study. Needless to say the general response from the locals has been far from useful. Why not try collaboration. Help to refine and improve the study text. Much more worthwhile

If you study both buildings, you will learn much more.

I suspect that MT will have studied WTC 2 in far greater detail than the vast majority of resources here. Again, I suggest you peruse the911forum before assuming *stuff*.

We'll see.

Who is we ? I am me. Pointless hubris, that kinda thing.

The proof will be if you can get published

Nope. The *proof*, if you like, is the trace data itself, and the simply achieved interpretation of it. I think there's some refinement of interpretation to be done, but there's no doubt at all that the NIST initiation sequence conclusions are *rule 10*.

And I suggest dropping the defamation of NIST. It's a transparent political maneuver to try to dismiss the entire NIST investigations and substitute the 'Truther' versions in their place. Are you more interested in truth or scoring superficial political points for your truther friends? It can't be both.

Very humerous. I'd laugh my socks off if you can find ANYTHING MT has posted which has any political implications whatsoever. Political. Hmm.

Anyway. Study the trace data. Better still, replicate it. It's not rocket science. It's quite an eye-opener.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Very humerous. I'd laugh my socks off if you can find ANYTHING MT has posted which has any political implications whatsoever. Political. Hmm.

Try reading the very first post. If you really think that suggesting CD of WTC1 has no political implications you are a fool.

 

[alienentity]

There could be many. A serious point, however, is that the NIST initiation sequence description (scant that it is) is wrong. Agreed ?

Funny thing is, MT first declared 'ROOSD, like BV, deals with collapse propagation of WTC1 and real buildings, not initiation'
Yet you go on and on about initiation. So neither of you can contain the urge to rope NIST into something MT says he isn't trying to do.
Can you be more contradictory? I don't think so.

The NIST report conclusions are scant, very poorly described, and wrong. There's no *defaming* going on, simply clarification. Critical, sure, but that's kinda in the rubrik yeah ?

Wow, a denial from a truther! Never saw that one coming..LOL. Every mention of NIST is done with contempt and disdain, by both you and MT. Let me quote one definition of defamation, just to back up my observation:
'is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. It is usually, but not always,[1] a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed '

What hypothesis ?

Exactly. Just a vague 'feeling' that what looks exactly like a natural collapse was 'engineered' by evil geniuses to look exactly that way.......is that a hypothesis? You tell me. 'is it not true that the papers of Dr Bazant are largely irrelevent when considering this type of controlled demolition? '
'By choosing perimeter seams carefully, all OOS contents and the entire perimeter can be intentionally dropped and steered to earth as desired in a remarkably controlled, orderly fashion.'

Is that a hypothesis? I dunno, I just read it, and it seems an awful lot like a CD hypothesis...which can never be proven, of course.

The trace data speaks for itself, revealing early movements which directly contradict the conclusions suggested by NIST. The trace data can be replicated by anyone with an inkling to do the leg-work, and careful use of available tools. It's data extracted directly from video footage of the actual event. On that basis, your call for a model at this point is, frankly, a bit irrelevant. Models have to be proven, data extracted directly from visual evidence is pretty much indesputable and definitive.

That was a lovely word-salad dance to try to excuse you guys from providing an engineering model. Bravo. No scientific method for you, go straight to 'inside job' and collect another paycheck for Richard Gage and AE911Truth.

The allegation, if it's constructed in a sciency-sounding way, is enough proof of inside job; burn the witches!!

Anyway, MT already said that the ROOSD theory isn't about the initiation, so why do you keep focusing on NIST? The study of conditions leading to the moment of collapse were all they dealt with in detail.
Or have you completely forgotten this? Even I can remember this and i don't spend nearly as much time as you guys do poring over every belch of fire that came from the towers, and every minute tilt of the antenna.

I suspect that MT will have studied WTC 2 in far greater detail than the vast majority of resources here. Again, I suggest you peruse the911forum before assuming *stuff*.

Your suspicions are of no interest to me, I'm afraid. But your attempt to defend the complete omission of WTC 2 from MT's study is laudable. Congratulations for deflecting from another perfectly legitimate demand - I expect no less.

Who is we ? I am me. Pointless hubris, that kinda thing.

Oh, you're not from this planet - I forgot. On earth we use the expression 'we'll see' when indicating our skepticism about the outcome of something.
Is that hubris?

I tend to think that a better example of hubris is found in a gaggle of internet 'engineers' who believe they are smarter and more knowledgeable than everybody else who ever worked on the WTC collapses.

Now that's hubris

but there's no doubt at all that the NIST initiation sequence conclusions are *rule 10*.

My my, there's that defamation thingy again, and that hubris stuff as well.
See? I told you....but you didn't listen.

Very humerous. I'd laugh my socks off if you can find ANYTHING MT has posted which has any political implications whatsoever. .

I stand corrected....no there are NO political implications in MT's research, oh heaven's no!! I see the light now - the NIST stuff is all complete *rule 10*, complete fraud, but there's nothing political about this....why didn't I see that sooner?

 

[pgimeno]

The NIST report conclusions are scant, very poorly described, and wrong.

I would say the report conclusions are what appears in chapter 8 of NCSTAR 1. Do they get the entire chapter wrong? Would you describe that chapter as "scant, very poorly described, and wrong"?

 

[femr2]

Funny thing is, MT first declared 'ROOSD, like BV, deals with collapse propagation of WTC1 and real buildings, not initiation'
Yet you go on and on about initiation. So neither of you can contain the urge to rope NIST into something MT says he isn't trying to do.
Can you be more contradictory? I don't think so.

Try reading the thread. I've made repeated requests for folk to focus upon the study content, with the response being request to *get to the point*. If you want to discuss aspects of ROOSD itself, great. Am all ears

Wow, a denial from a truther! Never saw that one coming..LOL. Every mention of NIST is done with contempt and disdain, by both you and MT. Let me quote one definition of defamation, just to back up my observation:
'is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. It is usually, but not always,[1] a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed '

Yawn. You can interpret criticism however you please, but that's what it is. For example, as you seem wont to do, the NIST description of initial 8 degree tilt before vertical drop is pathetically wrong. Saying so, and providing data to confirm the assertion is criticism.

Exactly. Just a vague 'feeling' that what looks exactly like a natural collapse was 'engineered' by evil geniuses to look exactly that way.......is that a hypothesis?

ROOSD describes a gravity driven post-initiation descent. The summary ofthe study highlights that it does not prove nor disprove *CD*, and provides one route by which MIHOP could be accomplished whilst retaining a gravity driven primary destruction mechanism. Reasons for the inclusion have been repeated over and over. Audience.

You tell me. 'is it not true that the papers of Dr Bazant are largely irrelevent when considering this type of controlled demolition? '
'By choosing perimeter seams carefully, all OOS contents and the entire perimeter can be intentionally dropped and steered to earth as desired in a remarkably controlled, orderly fashion.'

The Bazant et al limiting case model is what it says on the tin. It's not matched to observables.
You should note the use of the word *can*, but suggest you discuss such with MT himself.

Is that a hypothesis? I dunno, I just read it, and it seems an awful lot like a CD hypothesis...which can never be proven, of course.

Determining a more correct initiation sequence will enable better understanding of cause.

That was a lovely word-salad dance to try to excuse you guys from providing an engineering model. Bravo. No scientific method for you, go straight to 'inside job' and collect another paycheck for Richard Gage and AE911Truth.

What ? You suggest Gage et al would send out paycheques ? And to folk that are saying pretty much everything on his feature list is wrong ? lol. Guess you didn't actuall understand why the data is more definitive than an abstracted model. Hmm.

The allegation, if it's constructed in a sciency-sounding way, is enough proof of inside job; burn the witches!!

Again, guess you didn't understand. Any specific questions ?

But your attempt to defend the complete omission of WTC 2 from MT's study is laudable.

One step at a time. As I said, you'll find a wealth of study of WTC2 initiation at the911forum. Start readin.

I stand corrected....no there are NO political implications in MT's research, oh heaven's no!! I see the light now - the NIST stuff is all complete *rule 10*, complete fraud, but there's nothing political about this....why didn't I see that sooner?

Thanks. Wouldn't use the words fraud and all myself, but other than that, spot on.

 

[dafydd]

But they don't burn when the hit the Moon. Is there no gravity there?

3+ mach airplanes heat up a lot. Are they affected by out of this world gravity?

I can suspend an electrically charged particle in an electrical field so it doesn't fall due to gravity. Have I created anti-energy?

It seems to have escaped your notice that the Moon has no atmosphere.Never mind,we are used to educating truthers here.Stick with it,you'll learn something eventually.

 

[dafydd]

I can suspend an electrically charged particle in an electrical field so it doesn't fall due to gravity. Have I created anti-energy?

No.Try reading a physics textbook.

 

[pgimeno]

ROOSD describes a gravity driven post-initiation descent. The summary ofthe study highlights that it does not prove nor disprove *CD*, and provides one route by which MIHOP could be accomplished whilst retaining a gravity driven primary destruction mechanism.

Let me understand how this works.

Some people start claiming "it must have been a demolition". They start convincing people on [what you now know are] false grounds, including yourself, with the net result that you get also convinced that "it must have been a demolition". Later, you find that the very basis for maintaining that "it must have been a demolition" was bogus, so, instead of rejecting the whole idea to start fresh without any preconception, you maintain your belief and keep looking for different evidence that can confirm it.

Did I get it right? If so, I'm afraid that's clearly the effect of confirmation bias^WP. A rational reasoning would have gone something like this: "The evidence shown for sustaining the demolition idea was bogus, so since there is actually no evidence, I have been deceived and that idea must be put to rest until some real evidence appears, if ever, because otherwise I'm making an accusation on false grounds." That last step is the one you didn't take. It's painful, as it usually is to admit to yourself that you have been deceived and you must change your mind, and that's an obstacle that prevents so many people from changing their minds. Most of the pain comes from the fear for change: you usually have to switch buddies, which you think, probably rightly, that it will look like betrayal to the current ones, and that idea has a powerful psychological influence against doing it; on the other side, you don't have a sympathy to those who are your opponents, and if you think of starting to agree with them you're afraid of being ridiculed. In most people, the mind's usual solution is the easiest one: to leave things as they are.

In this case things are made more complex by the fact that that idea is conditioned on another preconception: that you believe the government is able to, and indeed did, perpetrate 9/11, so probably if you reject the demolition one you also find basis to reject the "government did it" one. That may be just too much to reject in one go, so I doubt you will reject either.

Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me you are rational when you pursue to prove an accusation for which you don't have any evidence except your own convincement.

 

[femr2]

Did I get it right?

No.

Tell me I'm wrong.

You're wrong.

Tell me you are rational when you pursue to prove an accusation for which you don't have any evidence except your own convincement.

You are assuming that my personal opinion matches that of whatever mythical group you have in mind.

My posts generally relate to specific data and interpretation of that data. Out of scope inferences are your own creation I'm afraid.

 

[pgimeno]

You are assuming that my personal opinion matches that of whatever mythical group you have in mind.

No, I don't. I'm assuming that you have been convinced by someone at some point that the towers were demolished, using the usual arguments of thermite, explosives, etc. and now you've found that these arguments are bogus, making the reasoning also bogus, but you don't reject the conclusion.

My posts generally relate to specific data and interpretation of that data. Out of scope inferences are your own creation I'm afraid.

Yes, I openly admit that. I create inferences based on my observations.

Now, what is wrong with my assumption?

 

[femr2]

what is wrong with my assumption?

It's not based on anything I've written. You could say that a lot of what I do *debunks* many *twoofer* claims, yet as I am also critical of bodies such as NIST, and question and *debunk* elements of the *accepted* narrative, your assumptions are, well, just that. Lots of claims are wrong. There are far too many folk who react badly to valid criticism of NIST you know

Perhaps you could revert to discussion on thread topic.

 

[pgimeno]

what is wrong with my assumption?

It's not based on anything I've written.

It is (and I quoted it), but that's not the point. The point is that it's accurate, and even if you fiercely denied that I got right my scenario (based on a misinterpretation of it), you didn't deny being irrational when pursuing to prove an accusation for which you don't have any evidence but your own personal conviction, therefore implicitly admitting so. That's what I wanted to remark.

Perhaps you could revert to discussion on thread topic.

Sure. As soon as I have anything else to say on it.

 

[femr2]

pursuing to prove an accusation

What accusation would that be exactly ?

Sure. As soon as I have anything else to say on it.

Good, good.

 

[alienentity]

Main thesis which seems to have formed in these truther's minds is essentially 'CD of the gaps' - whatever we can't eliminate or see therefore MUST have been controlled demolition.

The logical fallacy they're pursuing hinges on the notion that the demolition was made to perfectly mimic a natural collapse - this explains the lack of evidence neatly, and excuses them from ever finding any.

In a nutshell (nuts are appropriate metaphors here ) there are two contradictory assertions operating at once:

1) The collapses 'look' exactly like CD so therefore ARE CD

2) The collapses do NOT look like CD therefore ARE CD

This bottomless pit of contradiction was partially reached because truthers first seized upon freefall acceleration as THE definitive marker for CD, then eventually had to somehow make 2 exceptions for the towers (once it became clear that they didn't fall that fast)- 'CD of the gaps' is really the only thing they have left to run to.* Since 'CD of the gaps' is essentially an argument from nothing, it is a kind of intellectual capitulation from the more perceptive and intelligent truthers, although they are not going to admit it openly.

* The first argument I came across making an exception for the towers was by David Chandler, who made some mind-numbingly stupid argument which attempted to handwave away the fact that the towers collapsed a good deal slower than freefall acceleration.

 

[alienentity]

Please note that Major Tom has expressed exactly these principles in this thread, in an albeit roundabout fashion:

'By choosing perimeter seams carefully, all OOS contents and the entire perimeter can be intentionally dropped and steered to earth as desired in a remarkably controlled, orderly fashion.'

One further logical fallacy that I forgot to include is that, if the NIST hypothesis is in any way contradicted by the evidence, this automatically means that the CD theory is validated.

Never mind that the CD theory can never be validated, since there will never be evidence for it. What Femr2 and Major Tom apparently hope to do is simply create doubt about the NIST and Bazant explanations, leaving only their 'CD of the gaps' as the remaining theory.

It's actually a fairly smart strategy, to reverse the burden of proof, but it won't succeed outside the arena of rhetoric.

 

[femr2]

What Femr2 and Major Tom apparently hope to do is simply create doubt about the NIST and Bazant explanations, leaving only their 'CD of the gaps' as the remaining theory.

Nope.

Bazant is a limiting case mathematical model, and so provides effectively nil information about what actually happened, simply that there was enough energy available to do so post initiation with various assumptions.

NIST conclusions are being shown to be wrong, by looking at observable behaviour, and use of techniques such as feature tracing to prove so. NIST also stop at the critical period of time between their hypothetical computer-based model of initial failure and the actual initiation process.

I'm currently looking at the period of time in between where NIST abandon analysis and Bazant pick it up.

After that, based on whatever results ensue, I'll be tracking backwards through event leading to initiation.

Have made far too many posts today simply clarifying JREF regulars misinterpretations. About time y's all sort it out I rekn. Waste of my precious time.

 

[alienentity]

Nope.

Bazant is a limiting case mathematical model, and so provides effectively nil information about what actually happened, simply that there was enough energy available to do so post initiation with various assumptions.

NIST conclusions are being shown to be wrong, by looking at observable behaviour, and use of techniques such as feature tracing to prove so. NIST also stop at the critical period of time between their hypothetical computer-based model of initial failure and the actual initiation process.

I'm currently looking at the period of time in between where NIST abandon analysis and Bazant pick it up.

After that, based on whatever results ensue, I'll be tracking backwards through event leading to initiation.

Have made far too many posts today simply clarifying JREF regulars misinterpretations. About time y's all sort it out I rekn. Waste of my precious time.

Thanks for confirming that you are looking for 'CD of the gaps'.

 

[pgimeno]

What accusation would that be exactly ?

MIHOP is an accusation against the U.S. government of mass murder. I think you already know. Ever considered the depth of the consequences of being wrong because of thinking irrationally?

Tons of solid proofs on one side, zero solid proofs on the other side... in 9 years. And yet you keep searching for that philosopher's stone, that holy grail, that El Dorado, that extraordinary proof you need, and you do it just out of your personal conviction and nothing else. I will keep trying to be helpful on that to the extent I can, to my limitations of course (I think I already have tried my best in that regard, in the Physics Toolkit thread). Don't expect to find the proof you're seeking, though.

 

[pgimeno]

NIST conclusions are being shown to be wrong,

I must insist that you have not ever referred to NIST's conclusions, merely to NIST's collapse mechanism description, which is not their conclusions.