OOS Collapse Propagation Model

[femr2]

I guess MT might have mentioned anywhere that it would be possible to release just one floor slap to demolish the entire building.

I don't think one slab would do it. Three is a better fit...

 

[Major_Tom]

So, we are moving towards a WTC1 collapse initiation model just like the OOS progression model.


In the simplest sense, what do I mean by "model"?

I mean a list of attributes or features of an object that must all be true. Attributes may be quantitative or qualitative.

Every feature listed so far will be included in the initiation study as a separate entry. For this study I am interested in all initiation and early deformation features up to and including the strong south side ejection coming from the 88th (?) floor shown in the following video clip:

http://www.youtube.com/user/achimspok?&MMN_position=313:313#p/u/4/5WNBDjRx_1k


Also, I want to stress that I do not consider all collapse progression features as resulting from gravitational collapse. Two main examples are the behavior as the OOS front passes mechanical equipment floors and some ejections that are seen emerging below the collapse front. These progression features will be studied separately.

 

[Major_Tom]

Correction, the strong light colored ejections from the middle of the south face emerge as low as the 85 floor and are visible when the antenna has tilted only 2 degrees and the NW corner has fallen only 0.5 seconds.

According to the description of the upper block as a rigid rotating object, the 99th floor slab should be colliding with the 98th floor slab assembly at that moment.

Instead we see ejections of what appear to be concrete dust as low as the 85th floor.


We also see a large ejection of fire out of the SE corner well below fl 92, which is the lowest floor in which fire was visible.

As mentioned in the video, at the time of collapse initiation the 92nd floor fire had burned for only 10 minutes, abruptly starting at 10:18 as rows of smoke ejections emerged from multiple floors as seen below.

The main 2 rows of smoke ejections are separated by 3 floors. What natural structural failure within the building can eject rows of smoke separated by 3 floors? And remember that the 92nd floor had no visible fires before that sizable row of ejections.

 

[beachnut]

...3 floors. What natural structural failure within the building can eject rows of smoke separated by 3 floors? And remember that the 92nd floor had no visible fires before that sizable row of ejections.

You just proved no CD again.

You proved the interior is falling, or what?

Is there a point to your delusions?

When will you publish, who will do the math?

 

[achimspok]

Is the paper about your delusions on 911?
...
This pretty much ruins the faster than free-fall 911 truth side of the house, and how does thermite and beam weapons, or nukes fit in with your paper?

I just had fun to quote a beachnut Hi-Quality-Post from page one.

Btw, I think beachnut wanted to say that usually the welds of core columns pop like popcorn when heated in oil.

 

[ozeco41]

...The main 2 rows of smoke ejections are separated by 3 floors. What natural structural failure within the building can eject rows of smoke separated by 3 floors? And remember that the 92nd floor had no visible fires before that sizable row of ejections.

There are quite a few intriguing little bits of technical phenomena such as this little snippet. In some ways it is a pity there was no demolition because such skulduggery would give an easy way out for explanation.

So we are left with several possibilities. Part of it could be an explosive local effect which blows out a row of windows. But two floors separated by three coinciding???

Even if we took the easy way out and said "core cutting explosives" the three floors apart is intriguing - and that before we get to realise the reductio ad ridiculous of "how did the explosives get there?"

...so....back to the main plot. What "natural structural failure" could cause it? Collapse of a couple of bits of OOS floor? What is the timing relative to "initial collapse"?

 

[femr2]

There are quite a few intriguing little bits of technical phenomena such as this little snippet.

There are indeed. Some rather large ones also.

In some ways it is a pity there was no demolition because such skulduggery would give an easy way out for explanation.

Did I miss the part where your plan of action changed from *towards answering the prime technical question of demolition or not* to *not* ?

So we are left with several possibilities. Part of it could be an explosive local effect which blows out a row of windows. But two floors separated by three coinciding???

If from the same local explosive effect, it would have to be a big'un, yes ?

Even if we took the easy way out and said "core cutting explosives" the three floors apart is intriguing

Core columns being in three-floor lengths would perhaps reduce intrigue ?

and that before we get to realise the reductio ad ridiculous of "how did the explosives get there?"

I really don't think in such a situation that access would be too much of an issue, do you ?

And how would the behaviour of the smoke indicate *explosives* ? That's a word that is not quantified correctly very often imo, and paints a picture of enourmous james-bond sytle *devices* with unfeasibly archaic timing devices, and lots of red and blue curly wire ;o)

What "natural structural failure" could cause it? Collapse of a couple of bits of OOS floor?

Perhaps ? Does the behaviour fit with what you'd expect ? How would you distinguish between *natural* and *deliberate* ?

What is the timing relative to "initial collapse"?

~10:18 as stated in the post being responded to ?

 

[ozeco41]

...If from the same local explosive effect, it would have to be a big'un, yes ?...

...more like a "funny'un" because how to get a blast wave funnelled to two disparate locations avoiding the intervening bits. The coincidence seems too improbable - it cannot be ruled out but wisdom says unlikely pending further analysis.

...Core columns being in three-floor lengths would perhaps reduce intrigue ?..

Sure would for natural causes. Not so certain for explosive causes. Then the third category of other methods of intervention which you have hinted at but not defined and I cannot think of any highly likely ones so cannot assess that one till someone proposes a non explosives method of assisting collapse.

...I really don't think in such a situation that access would be too much of an issue, do you ?

..no matter how open I remain to arguments the two big barriers to human intervention remain - (1)how to do it before without getting caught and with the devices remaining viable and only in the place where the aircraft would hit without benefit of a bullseye aiming mark painted on the side of the building; OR (2) how to fit devices live on the day in the middle of a fire with thousands watching.

So however the detailed technical arguments go I still will need to see those two barriers overcome. It would be naive of me to pretend that those barriers don't exist until the sequence of logic arrives at them.

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/981176789.png[/qimg]

...And how would the behaviour of the smoke indicate *explosives* ? That's a word that is not quantified correctly very often imo, and paints a picture of enourmous james-bond sytle *devices* with unfeasibly archaic timing devices, and lots of red and blue curly wire ;o)...

mea culpa on using "explosive" in its more global meaning NOT in the narrow meaning of "steel cutting high explosive" or even quarry grade "low" explosive. It was easier that writing a long sentence to say "something which caused a pressurised puff of air possibly strong enough to blow out a row of windows but without implying steel cutting or quarrying grade explosives"

So I am with you on the "...word that is not quantified correctly very often..." but I am waiting for you or someone else to describe a mechanism which would achieve the structural damage without being "explosives". The concept has been stated. The means of achieving the concept is undefined.

...Perhaps ? Does the behaviour fit with what you'd expect ? How would you distinguish between *natural* and *deliberate* ?...

Deliberate: Human intervention "with malice aforethought" (yes, outdated, but...) intended to assist collapse whether or not it was needed. (I think that covers it

)

...~10:18 as stated in the post being responded to ?

I don't keep details such as the key times in my head - I will check the delta time relative to initial collapse. I was musing as to whether it was a floor collapse or such immediately preceding, i.e. a first stage in, the "initial collapse".

 

[femr2]

how to get a blast wave funnelled to two disparate locations avoiding the intervening bits.

Same with collapsing floor pans.

The coincidence seems too improbable

But natural coincidence is less probable ?

it cannot be ruled out but wisdom says unlikely pending further analysis.

Does cause change your view of probability ?

Sure would for natural causes.

Why ?

Not so certain for explosive causes.

Why ?

Then the third category of other methods of intervention which you have hinted at but not defined and I cannot think of any highly likely ones so cannot assess that one till someone proposes a non explosives method of assisting collapse.

You've already stated your actual viewpoint (explosives or not, not being your true position of course) so do you think your assessment of likelyhood may be a bit pointless ?

..no matter how open I remain to arguments the two big barriers to human intervention remain - (1)how to do it before without getting caught and with the devices remaining viable and only in the place where the aircraft would hit without benefit of a bullseye aiming mark painted on the side of the building;

I do not think it is possible to answer the question, as it would of course be entirely speculative.

OR (2) how to fit devices live on the day in the middle of a fire with thousands watching.

Don't think it's wise at all to include.

So however the detailed technical arguments go I still will need to see those two barriers overcome.

A discussion perpetual then ?

It would be naive of me to pretend that those barriers don't exist until the sequence of logic arrives at them.

Wouldn't that be the other way around ?

mea culpa on using "explosive" in its more global meaning NOT in the narrow meaning of "steel cutting high explosive" or even quarry grade "low" explosive. It was easier that writing a long sentence to say "something which caused a pressurised puff of air possibly strong enough to blow out a row of windows but without implying steel cutting or quarrying grade explosives"

Okay.

So I am with you on the "...word that is not quantified correctly very often..." but I am waiting for you or someone else to describe a mechanism which would achieve the structural damage without being "explosives". The concept has been stated. The means of achieving the concept is undefined.

Okay.

Deliberate: Human intervention "with malice aforethought" (yes, outdated, but...) intended to assist collapse whether or not it was needed. (I think that covers it [qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/scratch.gif[/qimg])

No, I mean't how would you distinguish the external visual behaviour between being natural or deliberate in underlying cause ?

I don't keep details such as the key times in my head - I will check the delta time relative to initial collapse. I was musing as to whether it was a floor collapse or such immediately preceding, i.e. a first stage in, the "initial collapse".

About 10 minutes.

 

[beachnut]

There are quite a few intriguing little bits of technical phenomena such as this little snippet. In some ways it is a pity there was no demolition because such skulduggery would give an easy way out for explanation.

So we are left with several possibilities. Part of it could be an explosive local effect which blows out a row of windows. But two floors separated by three coinciding???

Even if we took the easy way out and said "core cutting explosives" the three floors apart is intriguing - and that before we get to realise the reductio ad ridiculous of "how did the explosives get there?"

...so....back to the main plot. What "natural structural failure" could cause it? Collapse of a couple of bits of OOS floor? What is the timing relative to "initial collapse"?

There were zero explosives used on 911, not sure why 911 truth continues with CD as an option. It is pathetic Major Tom tries to back in CD with smoke coming out at speed indicative of local failures, not blast effects.

How dumb do you have to be to fall for CD? We are learning. I can't believe the nut case ideas these guys come up with.

 

[ozeco41]

Same with collapsing floor pans.

Yes.

...But natural coincidence is less probable ?

On the face of it yes. Human intervention would easily cause coincident effects whereas natural requires either coincidence OR a so far unknown funnelling mechanism.

...Does cause change your view of probability ?

..see previous.

...Why ?

Thought I was being obvious. With columns field spliced in three floor lengths and field splices a natural weakness failure at those points would be probable with natural causes as the initiator. Whilst:

...Why ?

...anyone cutting the columns would not be likely to pay much attention to the field splices - or, to be more pedantic, a human intervention initiation has the option of cutting at the splices or elsewhere so less likelihood of field splice location.

...You've already stated your actual viewpoint (explosives or not, not being your true position of course) so do you think your assessment of likelyhood may be a bit pointless ?

My own hypothesis is "no demolition" for reasons repeatedly tested and worked over since mid 2007. BUT I remain open to sound argument. In debate with anyone I try to not jump ahead of the logic of where the debate is. So in an earlier comment to Major_Tom I questioned his objective. I see three potential objectives mixed in the work and posting of yourself, MT, achimspok et al. 1) Explore the technical features of WTC collapse for the interest in those technical matters independent of any goal other than the investigation; 2) Prove NIST and other authorities wrong; PLUS 3) a possible "human assistance" to collapse outcome bounded by your repeated comments against traditional explosive demolition but coy as to what you mean other than leave the option open.

Since I am well aware of the mainstream arguments and have my own explanations of the collapses I cannot artificially pretend that there are no barriers against anyone heading down the track of "human intervention". Hence my comment about the two big barriers to be overcome. You suggest innovative methods as yet undefined. I await the "collision" between innovative methods and the two barriers to conventional demolition which may be surmountable by some innovative method.

...I do not think it is possible to answer the question, as it would of course be entirely speculative.

I see that as a cop out. (See next comment)

...Don't think it's wise at all to include.

The option is ridiculous but it is one of the two which discussions held so far lead to. And my humorous phrasing aside any human intervention has to be either before the event of the crashes OR after. Nothing speculative about those two unless I am missing something.

...A discussion perpetual then ?

Trying to read your mind here. Not all decisions depend upon measurable physical quantities.

...Wouldn't that be the other way around ?

No. You seem to have an artificial barrier to "prior thought" I know the paths I have trod before. To be simplistic "I know all the paths that I know" BUT that does not exclude other paths which may be revealed. And the next time I go down the track of debate with someone who raises points I have not recognised before I could go down a different track. (I'm not an academic scientist but that is the "scientific method" as I see it.)

...
No, I mean't how would you distinguish the external visual behaviour between being natural or deliberate in underlying cause ?

...it may not be possible. In explaining the "initial collapse" to my own satisfaction in previous discussions over recent years I cannot quantify the various contributing mechanisms. Nor identify all of them. I doubt that full identification and quantification is possible. Certainly not to me with limited resources including limited energy/enthusiasm/interest. So I have never tried to do a full technical "proof". I rely on the "impossibility" of explosive demolition. Both "quoted" words used for brevity of this post and with all the cop outs that are appropriate being implied.

...About 10 minutes.

Thanks. That is in "no man's land" isn't it? Thirty seconds would seem more natural.

 

[Major_Tom]

Core column bolted splices would be a natural target. Why cut columns if they are already cut and held together with only bolts and bolt plates? It is much easier to just crack the bolted splice plates and displace the columns slightly. Much less energy required.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, all 47 core column splices are at the same elevations separated by 3 floors in the region of interest (they are not staggered). There are horizontal planes separated by 3 floors which contain all the splice connections. The floors are 89, 92, 95, 98, 101, 104. The splice locations are about 3 ft above the flooring. The splices in this region are all bolted with no welds.

Rather important because the building failed through the 98th floor at an angle of less than 1 degree. Even if you think the tower failed naturally, because the failure angle was within 1 degree of plumb the splice connections are the natural place to look.

The smoke ejections in the previous gif are on the 95th and 92nd floors. So, initiation on floor 98 and the smoke ejections on fls 95 and 92.

Also as mentioned before the south face IB starts along the 95th floor slab and reached a maximum about 3 floors higher. IB was first witnessed about 6 minutes after 2 large fireballs were seen shooting from around the 98th floor, at the center of spot which became the maximum IB inward displacement.

 

[femr2]

anyone cutting the columns would not be likely to pay much attention to the field splices

Would be rather odd behaviour to ignore the most obvious location, do you not think ? As per *explosives*, I think *cutting* is perhaps leading.

1) Explore the technical features of WTC collapse for the interest in those technical matters independent of any goal other than the investigation

No, to determine the actual behaviour.

2) Prove NIST and other authorities wrong

No, to determine the actual behaviour. If that means highlighting errors presented by others, so be it. NIST of course bear the brunt of that.

3) a possible "human assistance" to collapse outcome

None of us would be here otherwise.

bounded by your repeated comments against traditional explosive demolition but coy as to what you mean other than leave the option open

Bit of bias creeping in there. No, expanding the scope of terms so that they are not leading/misleading/pre-positioning. For example... Can't stand folk banging on about *Controlled Demolition* who clearly have a mental picture of thousands of separate super-sekrit explosives installed on every floor to blow the thing to smithereens. It's a phrase with too many preconceptions. MIHOP. Ensuring descent to ground.

I see that as a cop out. (See next comment)

How about walk over to the relevant spot and just do it ? Who was watching that spot ? When ? If it's a cop out on my part, make some assumptions and answer the question.

The option is ridiculous

Yes, so I think it can safely be thrown away.

it may not be possible

In which case, further behaviours must be identified in order to find out.

I rely on the "impossibility" of explosive demolition.

Again, we need to get rid of these leading phrases. Explosive demolition ? How does that phrase gel with, say, the post by MT above ?

That is in "no man's land" isn't it?

Do you mean by your personal viewpoint of how to invoke descent that you think that's a bit early ?

Thirty seconds would seem more natural.

And perhaps the event is benign. Perhaps ~9.5s is a more relevant timing. These are things that continued focus will aim to clarify. Innit

 

[achimspok]

What natural cause can force a column to fail at the upper and the lower connection simultaneously? (e.g. at floor 92 about 3ft above the floor slap at 10:18 inside the core - means less fuel)
If there is some plausible mechanism then probably a certain area of a sandwich of 3 floors will drop causing an overpressure at 92 and a suction at 95. The part above the dropped area has to "fall" a little more just to cause an overpressure at 95 too. That fall must be stopped by the vertical neighbors of the naturally broken one but these neighbors may not break in the same way.

The speed of the smoke is evidence for a natural partial collapse? That's nonsense. The failure occurred inside the core (20-30 meters away from the exterior walls and probably blocked by elevators and walls... and finally windows).
Even in usual controlled demolitions you don't see always high pressure / high speed squibs.

You also might like to watch this video of totally unblocked charges (go to 3:15 for the best view)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaBQ3AkRetI

And you might also like to watch this. Count the bangs and flashes and compare it to the visible high pressure smoke ejections!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRaNwPGcQcM

how to do it before without getting caught

That's discussed a lot, isn't it? ...month of renovation of the elevator system means full access to all the shafts and no one who will look inside for suspicious equipment. On 9/11 at least 4 elevators in WTC1 were out of service: the express elevators #7 and #6 and two express shuttle. There are no informations about the locals e.g. in the upper section.

and with the devices remaining viable and only in the place where the aircraft would hit without benefit of a bullseye aiming mark painted on the side of the building

Well, that's a good question.

Given the fact that 25° continuously banking and 490mph means a radius of about 11000 meters. That plane changes it's heading for 1.1° per second and you will hardly see the center column from 5 seconds away.


So, what natural mechanism is thinkable that causes one or a few columns to fail at the upper and the lower end simultaneously and how do we get natural overpressure at both floors but not in between?

 

[ozeco41]

Would be rather odd behaviour to ignore the most obvious location, do you not think ? As per *explosives*, I think *cutting* is perhaps leading.

"most obvious" from a theoretical point of view may not be any easier in practice. Your wish to avoid any of the implicit outcomes of your process by denying their explicit statement is only a matter of style. However I explain "make the structure fail by human intervention" you seek to disagree with words such as "cutting". OK so you are talking about this esoteric undefined human intervention which is from a class of actions which make the structure fail and includes but is not limited to cutting.

There is little point trying to define further because you are in this operating method which seems to require that you cannot consider likely end points of certain tracks of investigation before you actually get there. I see that as a game tactic rather than anything more commendable in investigatory method. And it is not surprising that you et al get rubbished here as "truthers" given what will be seen and is seen by more straight forward persons as simply evading the inevitability of the directions you identify even if you don't take those direction at this time.

...No, to determine the actual behaviour.


No, to determine the actual behaviour. If that means highlighting errors presented by others, so be it. NIST of course bear the brunt of that....

I was identifying the implicit objectives - your "style" denies you the freedom to look at those objectives from an external viewpoint. If you need your actions to be free of any objective so be it. That need does not change the reality that a range of possible implicit objectives can be identified.

The "softest" of my alternatives was "Explore the technical features of WTC collapse for the interest in those technical matters...." I see no practical difference to your "determine the actual behaviour" other than a wish to deny any motive including the motive of "interest".

I will defer comment on the remainder of your post because it is more of the same thing.

As I see it you want to maintain a strictly neutral position on matters under investigation and you see neutrality as requiring any possible outcomes to be denied until and if you get to them down your path of investigation.

I have been down the main paths of WTC 9/11 debate many times and have no difficulty recalling some of the issues even though I can treat a new debate as new. I have no difficulty following or discussing a new path if one is presented. But I will recognise short cuts to matters previously identified, you appear to prefer to not do so, even to deny that there has been previous enquiry.

Hanging over all of this is the question "Why conduct this attempt at neutral technical investigation on JREF where the directions it seems to head in will be vigorously rejected"? And I ask that question without comment as to the quality or accuracy of the "rejections".

 

[femr2]

OK so you are talking about this esoteric undefined human intervention which is from a class of actions which make the structure fail and includes but is not limited to cutting.

When I say MIHOP, yes.

There is little point trying to define further because you are in this operating method which seems to require that you cannot consider likely end points of certain tracks of investigation before you actually get there. I see that as a game tactic rather than anything more commendable in investigatory method.

Far from it. I don't play games. You can assume it to be a path towards answering your favorite question *demolition or not* if you like, and as far as I'm concerned, that question has not been fully answered, one reason being that there are major issues with the published texts on the subject. On the other hand, you profess to already have the answers, so who would it be playing games ? Things you may think as irrelevant minutia still deserve answers of course, so things like *what caused the smoke ejecta* being discussed should therefore be answered. If you don't have an answer for that and many other questions, you don't actually know what happened, you simply believe what you choose to based upon your own probability criteria. I intend to, one way or another, determine what happened, not what may have happened. Simple as that really.

And it is not surprising that you et al get rubbished here as "truthers" given what will be seen and is seen by more straight forward persons as simply evading the inevitability of the directions you identify even if you don't take those direction at this time.

Looks like you are getting a little impatient.

There is no rush.

As far as I'm concerned the purpose of this thread was to gain feedback upon the ROOSD study. Don't think anyone rational has any real beef with a post-initiation gravity driven self propogating method of OOS region destruction.

It's moved to initiation, which is fine, though suggest, as it's bound to be a protracted discussion, that threads are made very specific, one for each particular initiation feature.

Whether that lends itself to discussion here is possibly doubtful, so it may well be that the911forum is a better place to conduct that.

The odd thing about this place is that quite a few items have been firmly places upon the table by MT...all manner of behaviours which do not fit with the NIST version of events, and yet there is little reaction other than *so what*.

What would be the outcome if one was to say *NIST got it wrong, so chuck that report in the bin*. What text got it right ? And on, and on...

Again, think it's time to focus on each behaviour within it's own thread such that it can be studied properly without noise.

 

[beachnut]

When I say MIHOP, yes.
things like *what caused the smoke ejecta* being discussed should therefore be answered...

You are trying to back in CD. Thermite and explosives did not cause the smoke puffs. The OOS was solely pursued to make it easier to say small amount of thermite or explosives could be used for CD.

You lack the ability to understand 911, and your work shows it. The flight 175 RADAR and flight tracking comes to mind where you have answered your questions in your research but fail to understand you figured it out.

When will Major Tom do the math for his OOS, and when will it be published. I cringe to see what you and Major Tom's theories on 77 and 93 are after seeing the nonsnese here on OOS.

You act so sophisticated and then post a photo of the WTC office space, bare, and make comments how easy it would be to place the explosives or thermite. Silent explosives, invisible thermite product thermite. Blast free explosives which send out puffs of smoke like a wall fell down. Thermite which the iron evaporates and leaves no trace, and not evidence on WTC steel. Super secret new nano movie grade fantasy stuff to bring down the WTC. You are a boring 911 truther, you hide your crazy conclusions and only slip up with the, looks how easy it is to plant explosives stuff or your implication of explosives/thermite here in this post. You imply the puffs of smoke are proof of CD.

You and Major Tom have to back in CD, and you will will study 911 until you do it. You guys will be the JFK like CTers in 31 years, still manufacturing techniques to back in CD.

What if NIST is wrong? The WTC towers fell due to impacts and fires, and WTC7 fire. Nothing changes if you could prove NIST is wrong, fire did it. That is what is cool about evidence, you don't have it to prove your CD delusions, but the evidence proves impacts and fires did it. 19 terrorists did 911, the plot must be too complex for you CD experts.

When you add evidence, use reality based evidence, OOS proves no CD. You guys debunk yourselves, like you did with Flight 175; Major Tom does with OOS.

 

[femr2]

You are trying to back in CD.

Incorrect (1)

Thermite and explosives did not cause the smoke puffs.

What caused the *smoke puffs* Beachnut ?

The OOS was solely pursued to make it easier to say small amount of thermite or explosives could be used for CD.

Incorrect (2)

You lack the ability to understand 911

Incorrect (3)

and your work shows it

Incorrect (4)

The flight 175 RADAR and flight tracking comes to mind where you have answered your questions in your research but fail to understand you figured it out.

Incorrect (5)

When will Major Tom do the math for his OOS, and when will it be published.

Why don't you ask him.

I cringe to see what you and Major Tom's theories on 77 and 93 are after seeing the nonsnese here on OOS.

The nonsnese here is mostly the increasingly disturbing posts by your good self Beachnut.

You act so sophisticated and then post a photo of the WTC office space, bare, and make comments how easy it would be to place the explosives or thermite.

Incorrect (6)

Silent explosives, invisible thermite product thermite.

In English ?

Blast free explosives which send out puffs of smoke like a wall fell down.

Is that your interpretation of the smoke ejecta being discussed ?

Thermite which the iron evaporates and leaves no trace, and not evidence on WTC steel.

You like thermite Beachnut. It's good to have interests. Keeps one calm and rational, for most folk.

Super secret new nano movie grade fantasy stuff to bring down the WTC.

Amazing. Tell us all about it Beachnut. Perhaps you can do so in a *Beachnut's delusions* thread ?

You are a boring 911 truther, you hide your crazy conclusions and only slip up with the, looks how easy it is to plant explosives stuff or your implication of explosives/thermite here in this post.

Incorrect (7)

You imply the puffs of smoke are proof of CD.

Incorrect (8)

You and Major Tom have to back in CD, and you will will study 911 until you do it.

Incorrect (9)

You guys will be the JFK like CTers in 31 years, still manufacturing techniques to back in CD.

Incorrect (10)

What if NIST is wrong?

Then there are still many questions deserving of answers.

The WTC towers fell due to impacts and fires, and WTC7 fire.

Because... you say so ?

Nothing changes if you could prove NIST is wrong

Incorrect (11)

fire did it

Incorrect (12)

That is what is cool about evidence, you don't have it to prove your CD delusions, but the evidence proves impacts and fires did it.

Evidence. I assume you have detailed study of all of the physical columns within each initiation zone upon which to base that statement ? And information, other than the NIST report, to clarify all behavioural issues ? If you don't like folk continuing to look into the event, that's your lookout. No skin off my nose at all.

19 terrorists did 911, the plot must be too complex for you CD experts.

Deep. And you are conversing with whom ... ?

When you add evidence, use reality based evidence, OOS proves no CD.

Incorrect (13)

You guys debunk yourselves

Incorrect (14)

like you did with Flight 175

Incorrect (15)

Major Tom does with OOS.

Incorrect (16)

Wow.

 

[ozeco41]

...Far from it. I don't play games. You can assume it to be a path towards answering your favorite question *demolition or not* if you like, and as far as I'm concerned, that question has not been fully answered, one reason being that there are major issues with the published texts on the subject. On the other hand, you profess to already have the answers, so who would it be playing games ?...

I am simply identifying and describing two different (and probably 180^o opposed) mental processes.

I intend no derogatory comment even if I do use "game" as a descriptor. The path you are taking at present seems to lead, in the set of scenarios I can comprehend, towards an inevitable collision with the case for human causation. I have no difficulty accepting that the road map of pathways may have pathways which I cannot see at present. But that does not mean I ignore the pathways I can see. I comprehend and accept that, for you, "that question has not been fully answered". Your following comment "...one reason being that there are major issues with the published texts on the subject.." reveals (or seems to reveal to me) a confusion of objective. There are two questions viz 1) What caused the collapse? AND 2) Did NIST et al explain it right? Those are separate issues. In your approach the two are linked. They are not to me. I have no real concern that NIST could have got some bits wrong.

... Things you may think as irrelevant minutia still deserve answers of course, so things like *what caused the smoke ejecta* being discussed should therefore be answered. If you don't have an answer for that and many other questions, you don't actually know what happened, you simply believe what you choose to based upon your own probability criteria. I intend to, one way or another, determine what happened, not what may have happened. Simple as that really.

Let me simply explain my perspective of the different approaches we take. Yours is "no big question can be answered until all the details are explained". You are working from the minutiae towards the big picture. I normally work from the big picture downwards. The big questions are in the big picture and there will be lots of details which are irrelevant to answering each big picture question. Without needing to debate our differences here I hold that:

• Your logic of "all the little details need to be understood before we approach the big question" is flawed. you are at complete liberty to follow that path but it is wrong to claim that my alternate path is wrong and your path is correct. AND
• Your characterisation of my position is in error. In fact your claims taken generically deny the validity of the scientific method. I hold to an hypothesis. I am open to it being rebutted by a more persuasive one. I will discuss alternates whenever they are sufficiently formulated to give something to discuss. And, yes, I have little patience with persons who explore detail with the implicit objective of rebutting my hypothesis but are not prepared to acknowledge that implicit objective. Conversely I have no difficulty sitting on the side lines and observing detailed discussion undertaken for technical interest but without the implied objective of rebut my hypothesis.

To put that in a plain English example I would hold that there was no use of thermite or derivatives to assist collapse of any WTC Tower. I understand and accept that some people may find it interesting to discuss whether residues of those materials were on ground zero. If the claims for residues are made with the intent, implicit or explicit, of "proving demolition" I will argue from a different approach "there was no demolition". There may very well have been a ten tonne cache of Thermate on ground zero but it was not used. So, if someone tries to engage me in debate of thermxte with a view to supporting a "demolition" scenario, I will counter from a perspective which bypasses the validity of thermxte as a decision factor. Simply put it could not have been used therefore it wasn't. Said simplistic position backed up by necessary details if needed.

...Looks like you are getting a little impatient.

There is no rush.

Could be - at heart I am a practical field manager with a career long involvement in emergency management. So definitely not the academic researcher with infinite patience.

...As far as I'm concerned the purpose of this thread was to gain feedback upon the ROOSD study. Don't think anyone rational has any real beef with a post-initiation gravity driven self propogating method of OOS region destruction...

I accept it - there may be some extensions into detail by MT that I have not considered but the broad thrust I derived independently as my own explanation late 2007.

...It's moved to initiation, which is fine, though suggest, as it's bound to be a protracted discussion, that threads are made very specific, one for each particular initiation feature.

Again I may be "jumping the gun" by your approach but I have held that there are only two stages for "human assistance" viz the initiation and the global progression. And, of those two, the first is a must.

...Whether that lends itself to discussion here is possibly doubtful, so it may well be that the911forum is a better place to conduct that...

Yes. I got the locked door treatment over there when I tried to join about 12-18 months back.

...The odd thing about this place is that quite a few items have been firmly places upon the table by MT...all manner of behaviours which do not fit with the NIST version of events, and yet there is little reaction other than *so what*...

the polarisation here is very strong. On a much smaller scale for 9/11 matters but the same polarisation was developing on the Dawkins' forum which was my "home" 2007-2009 and it continues onto ratskep. Very few engineers or applied physics persons there contrast the masses of high level work which supports this place - whether that work is agreed to or not.

...What would be the outcome if one was to say *NIST got it wrong, so chuck that report in the bin*. What text got it right ? And on, and on...

Again we part company. I don't care if NIST "got a few bits wrong". There would be a threshold level of "how much NIST got wrong" which could lead to government review. But I doubt that technical matters would reach such a threshold - pure politics methinks. Technical doubt could become the catalyst to a political process. However that is speculation. I thought you didn't like speculation.

...Again, think it's time to focus on each behaviour within it's own thread such that it can be studied properly without noise.

I doubt the wisdom/prudence of attempting such a discussion here unless the objective is to raise opposition.

 

[Major_Tom]

How is your german, funk?

Ozeco, The 9/11 forum underwent a transition where e-mails went unanswered for a month or 2. Fixed. Should you apply again, your e-mail will be answered promptly.

You have mentioned a few times that you don't mind if the NIST got a few bits wrong. WHere did you get the impression that only a few bits are wrong?

Just in this thread so far I have showed that strong overpressure occured on fl 98 before any visible point on the building was released to fall.

I have shown overpressure as low as the 77th floor as the building starts to move downward, more than 20 floors below the collapse initiaton elevation.

I have shown a large ejection of light grey dust from around floor 86, south side as the antenna had tilted about 2 degrees and the NW corner had only fallen about 0.5 meters.

I have shown two large fireballs emerging from the south face where inward bowing will be seen 7 minutes later.

I have shown the NW edge of the building being pulled inward and the base of the antenna moving eastward from 9.5 seconds before visible initiation.

I have shown that the failure happened with minimal tilting through the 98th floor, on which all 47 core columns have bolted connections at the samne elevation. NIST forgot to mention the bolted connections.

And, of course, the simultaneous ejections from both fls 92 and 95 while to that point there was no visible fire on fl 92.


These are not "little bits". They show an entirely different process than the one the NIST describes.